Effort Aexander appeals the district court's dismissal of his civil rights case on grounds of res judicata. We affirm, because the test for res judicata is met. Aexander previously filed two lawsuits against parties who are identical to or in privity with the parties in this case on the “same nucleus of operative facts,” See Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005). The district courts dismissed each case in final judgments on the merits. 1 See id. Athough the attorney general was not a named defendant in the prior cases, in Alexander I, he represented the original defendant, and in Alexander II, the state of Mississippi was a defendant. Thus, the parties are identical or in privity. See Russell v. Sunamerica Secur. Inc., 962 F.2d 1169, 1173-74 (5th Cir. 1992). Further, Aexander’s claim that the attorney general violated his civil rights in asserting that Aexander was responsible for a disputed dam concerns the same “nucleus of operative facts” as the prior cases, as the district court concluded. See Singh, 428 F.3d at 571. Finally, the claim could and should have been previously raised, as the attorney general’s office asserted to Alexander that he was responsible for the dam in 1996 and in defending Alexander I. See In re Paige, 610 F.3d 865, 873-74 (5th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.