James Constant v. Southern California Edison Co.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
OCT 20 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES CONSTANT, No. 20-56179
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-06700-JFW-KES
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
James Constant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging various claims arising from
eminent domain cases against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on
*
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).
the basis of res judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987
(9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Constant’s action because the claims
were raised, or could have been raised, in a prior state court case that involved the
same primary rights and parties and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See
Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir.
2005) (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment federal courts
look to state law.”); DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 386 (Cal. 2015)
(setting forth claim and issue preclusion doctrine under California law); Fed’n of
Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 557 (Ct.
App. 2004) (claim preclusion “bars the litigation not only of issues that were
actually litigated but also issues that could have been litigated”). The district court
properly held that the state court judgment in a separate proceeding involving the
California Department of Transportation also had preclusive effect in this action.
See DKN Holdings LLC, 352 P.3d at 386-87 (explaining that issue preclusion
prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case and can be
invoked by one not a party to the first proceeding).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Constant’s request, set forth in his reply brief, to strike portions of Southern
2 20-56179
California Edison Company’s answering brief and excerpts of record is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-56179