Douglas Clark v. Kevin Chappell

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS DANIEL CLARK, No. 16-15994
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-04649-YGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden; CAROLE
HYMAN, Chaplain at San Quentin Prison,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge,
Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
*
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
Before:SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD,
Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Douglas Daniel
Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising
from the denial of Clark’s entry into a kosher
diet program. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. ASARCO,
LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1004
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 16-15994
(9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Clark’s
claims seeking injunctive relief because Clark is
now a member of the kosher diet program,
rendering his claim moot. See NASD Dispute
Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of Cal., 488
F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A case is
moot on appeal if no live controversy remains at
the time the court of appeals hears the case.”).
The district court properly dismissed Clark’s
claims seeking declaratory relief and monetary
damages as barred by the doctrine of res
3 16-15994
judicata because Clark has previously litigated
the same claims in a California state habeas
proceeding against the same parties or their
privies. See 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
4 16-15994
primary rights theory).
To the extent Clark claims legal error in the
California state habeas proceeding, the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine bars any such claim. See
Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1155-57 (9th Cir.
2003) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars de facto
appeal of a state court decision).
We do not consider the district court’s
denial of Clark’s post-judgment motion because
Clark never filed a new or amended notice of
appeal after the district court denied his motion.
See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1137-38
5 16-15994
n.1 (9th Cir. 2017).
We reject as without merit Clark’s
contentions regarding judicial misconduct and
fraud upon the court.
Clark’s motion for oral argument (Docket
Entry No. 26) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
6 16-15994