911 F2d 739 Toda v. K Kaneko
911 F.2d 739
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Harvey H. TODA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Wayne K. KANEKO and City and County of Honolulu, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-16090.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 3, 1990.*
Decided Aug. 7, 1990.
Before WALLACE, CANBY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Harvey H. Toda appeals pro se from the district court's entry of summary judgment against him on the basis of res judicata. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We affirm.
Toda's present suit is nothing more than a rehash of his prior suit in Toda v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 87-2820, memorandum disposition (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 1988), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 89 (1989). Like the instant case, Toda involved the rezoning of Toda's real property in the City and County of Honolulu. Id. Because the matters raised in the instant suit were raised or could have been raised in Toda's prior suit, Toda is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from raising them again. See Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979); American Triticale, Inc. v. Nytco Services, Inc., 664 F.2d 1136, 1146-47 (9th Cir.1981). The district court therefore did not err by granting summary judgment to the appellees based on res judicata.
AFFIRMED.