MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Paul Nivard Beaton appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on res judicata). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Beatons action as barred by res judicata because Beatons claims were raised or could have been raised in his prior federal action between the parties or their privies that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (“The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.”); Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (federal claim preclusion “applies when there is (1) an identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity between parties” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Beatons motion (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.
AFFIRMED.