The district court correctly dismissed this suit on claim preclusion grounds. A different environmental advocacy group had earlier brought suit in Oregon challenging the same Fish & Wildlife plan for bull trout. The Oregon district court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiff elected not to amend, instead appealing unsuccessfully. Then the current plaintiff sued to challenge the same plan in Montana district court. The claims in the two suits were the same and the second suit’s theories could have been raised in the Oregon suit. The plaintiff in this suit was in privity with the plaintiff in the Oregon suit in that they shared a common interest in wildlife and habitat preservation. A dismissal without leave to amend is a final judgment entitled to claim preclusive effect. Here, by electing to appeal rather than amend, and only after losing on appeal, unsuccessfully seeking leave to amend again, the plaintiff essentially converted the original dismissal with to one without leave to amend.