Adelbert G. Clostermann v. Arlene Finlayson and Duncan Finlayson

967 F.2d 585 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Adelbert G. CLOSTERMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arlene FINLAYSON and Duncan Finlayson, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-35065. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 10, 1992. * Decided June 18, 1992. Before FLETCHER, LEAVY and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Oregon attorney Adelbert Clostermann appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against two former clients, Arlene and Duncan Finlayson. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. 3 Clostermann sued the Finlaysons in state court to collect fees allegedly due him. These claims were subject to arbitration according to Oregon law, Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 36.400-36.425, and were eventually dismissed. Clostermann now seeks to relitigate his fee claims against the Finlaysons in federal court. In addition to his contract and tort claims, Clostermann also brings a section 1983…