¶2 Gregory S. Tift appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.
¶3 The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Tift has already litigated his claims of false representation and improper service in a prior federal action between the parties and their privies. See Employee Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993 (9th Cir.2007); see also Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at 987 (setting forth elements of res judicata).
¶4 AFFIRMED.