Joseph Leon v. San Jose Police Dept. ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAY 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JOSEPH R. LEON, No. 15-15433
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-05504-HRL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
CITY OF SAN JOSE; KEVIN
MCCLURE, Officer Badge #3979;
BRIAN LOFTUS, Officer Badge #3965,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Howard R. Lloyd, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 21, 2017**
San Francisco, California
*
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).
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LOGAN,***
District Judge.
Appellant Joseph Leon (“Leon”) appeals the grant of summary judgment in
favor of Appellees San Jose Police Department (“SJPD”) and Officers Kevin McClure
and Brian Loftus on Leon’s § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. We review de novo the district court’s grant of
summary judgment. Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir. 2002). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The Appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment
claim. A § 1983 claim brought in federal court is subject to principles of issue and
claim preclusion by a prior state court judgment. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94-
95 (1980). The alleged violation of Leon’s Fourth Amendment rights was the identical
issue decided by the state criminal court in his motion to vacate its judgment, it was
necessarily decided in a final decision on the merits, and Leon was the same party
against whom collateral estoppel is now invoked. Lucido v. Superior Court, 795 P.2d
1223, 1225 (Cal. 1990). The requirements for collateral estoppel under California law
were satisfied, and Leon had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim before the
state court. Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285, 288 (9th Cir. 1994).
***
The Honorable Steven Paul Logan, United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
2
2. Summary judgment was also proper on Leon’s claim that the Appellees
violated the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against him because of his race.
To survive summary judgment on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must produce
evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find by a preponderance of
the evidence that the defendant’s decision was racially motivated. Serrano v. Francis,
345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). Leon’s complaint contained no allegations
supporting an equal protection claim, and none of the materials he proffered gave rise
to a genuine issue that the Appellees acted with discriminatory intent in this case. See
Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach, 341 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir. 2003).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3