federal court when res judicata or collateral estoppel acts as an affirmative defense to that action, on the reasoning that "federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly-pleaded complaint.” While we recognize that the All Writs Act is utilized as a tool to effectuate the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, which deals with the underlying principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, we note that those principles are not asserted as a defense, but rather as the federal claim presented in Liberty Mutual's petition for injunctive relief under the All Writs Act. 7 . Although we rely upon federal law in analyzing the collateral estoppel issue, see Jaramillo v. Burkhart, 999 F.2d 1241, 1245 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), it is irrelevant whether we apply federal
holding that state law controls whether issues decided in a prior state court action are entitled to preclusive effect and setting forth the elements of collateral estoppel under washington law holding that to determine collateral estoppel effect of a federal civil rights action fjederal law governs the preclusive effect of a claim arising under federal law holding in a res judicata case that fjederal law determines the preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment holding that federal rules of res judicata and collateral estoppel determine preclusive effect of prior federal ftca judgments even though liability is based on state law holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law