Maher Suarez v. Scott Kernan ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAHER CONRAD SUAREZ, No. 16-16902
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02048-KJM-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SCOTT KERNAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Maher Conrad Suarez appeals pro se from the
district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations relating to his gang validation and placement in the administrative
segregation unit and secured housing unit (“SHU”) for an indefinite term. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Lyon v.
Chase Bank USA, N.A., 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Suarez’s action as barred by the
doctrine of claim preclusion because Suarez has previously litigated the same
claims in California state court against the same parties or their privies. See
Furnace v. Giurbino, 838 F.3d 1019, 1023-26 (9th Cir. 2016) (California habeas
petition had claim preclusive effect on civil rights litigation because both actions
challenged plaintiff’s gang validation and SHU placement); Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t
of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 2014) (reasoned denials of California
habeas petitions have claim preclusive effect on civil litigation); Adam Bros.
Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, 604 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2010)
(setting forth elements of claim preclusion under California law and explaining that
California’s doctrine of claim preclusion is based on a primary rights theory).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-16902