William Sutherland v. M. Underwood

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM SUTHERLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. UNDERWOOD,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-15926
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01767-LJO-
GBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William Sutherland appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to medical needs in connection with degenerative disk problems in
Sutherland’s neck and back. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15926 2
review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of the action as barred by
res judicata. Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.
2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sutherland’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Sutherland could have litigated his claim against
Underwood in a prior action, where he also alleged that prison officials were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in connection with degenerative
problems in his neck and back and, as a result, he fell from his upper bunk and
injured his shoulder. See id. at 1052 (setting out the elements of res judicata); FTC
v. Garvey, 383 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Res judicata, or claim preclusion,
‘bars any lawsuits on any claims that were raised or could have been raised in a
prior action.’” (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --