22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4db,MEMORANDUM Michael Schaefer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of a Nevada election statute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986 , 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Dismissal of Schaefer’s action was proper because the issues involved were actually litigated and decided in Schaefer’s prior federal court action. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 , 128 S.Ct. 2161 , 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (issue preclusion bars “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting forth issue preclusion elements under federal law). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T508,

MEMORANDUM

Michael Schaefer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of a Nevada election statute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986 , 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Schaefer’s action was proper because the issues involved were actually litigated and decided in Schaefer’s prior federal court action. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 , 128 S.Ct. 2161 , 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (issue preclusion bars “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting forth issue preclusion elements under federal law).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.