eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2023-03

Bennie Benton, III v. County of Los Angeles ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                               FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 3 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENNIE BENTON III,                               No.   21-55991
Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No.
2:20-cv-06159-VBF-E
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; DOES, 1                   MEMORANDUM*
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 1, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Bennie Benton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
*
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).
with prejudice his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action on the basis of res judicata. We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal based on res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp,
    297 F.3d 953
    , 956 (9th
Cir. 2002). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, but
review de novo the futility of amendment. Cohen v. ConAgra Brands, Inc.,
    16 F.4th 1283
    , 1287 (9th Cir. 2021). We review for abuse of discretion a district
court’s decision whether to take judicial notice. United States v. Chapel,
    41 F.3d 1338
    , 1342 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.
I
The district court properly dismissed this action based on res judicata
because this action concerns the same claim against the same party as Benton’s
state-court action against the County of Los Angeles (“the County”), and the state
court had entered its final judgment. See Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of
Santa Barbara,
    604 F.3d 1142
    , 1148–49 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that this court
applies res judicata to a state court’s decision using the res judicata law of that
state); Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co.,
    51 P.3d 297
    , 301 (Cal. 2002) (providing
the elements of res judicata under California law); Fed’n of Hillside & Canyon
Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles,
    24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543
    , 557 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding
that “[t]wo proceedings are on the same cause of action if they are based on the
2
same primary right,” which is “the right to be free from a particular injury,
regardless of the legal theory on which liability for the injury is based” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Neither Benton’s amendment to his original complaint nor the information
he received before the state court’s final judgment alters the analysis. See Fed’n of
Hillside, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 557 (“Res judicata bars the litigation not only of issues
that were actually litigated but also issues that could have been litigated.”); Clark
v. Yosemite Cmty. Coll. Dist.,
    785 F.2d 781
    , 789 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that
res judicata applies to “the facts and conditions as they existed at the time the
judgment was rendered”).
II
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend
because further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc.,
    656 F.3d 1034
    , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011).
III
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the County’s
requests to take judicial notice because the subjects of those requests were court
filings and other documents that “can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b);
3
see Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose,
    420 F.3d 1022
    , 1037 (9th
Cir. 2005) (observing that state-court filings can be “helpful in considering matters
related to preclusion in the state courts”). The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Benton’s request to take judicial notice because some of the
subjects of that request were attached to his amended complaint, such that taking
judicial notice of them was unnecessary, and the remainder were legal conclusions
or otherwise not noticeable under Rule 201(b).
The County’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 11) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
4