
    Terry MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-15336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2013.
    
    Filed June 17, 2013.
    Terry Morgan, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Leila K. Mongan, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Terry Morgan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and racial profiling arising from a traffic ticket for jaywalking. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment based on the doctrine of res judicata because Morgan asserted identical claims against identical defendants arising out of the same primary right in a prior California state court action that was dismissed with prejudice. See Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2007) (federal courts look to state law to determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment); Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d 297, 301, 306-07 (2002) (setting forth elements of the doctrine of res judicata under California’s primary rights theory); see also Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal.4th 788, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, 230 P.3d 342, 345 (2010) (under California law, dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final judgment on the merits).

Morgan’s contentions regarding the alleged denial of a right to speedy trial and the improper adjudication of his action before any witness testimony are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     