David R. Smith v. County of Santa Cruz;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID R. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15132
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-02376-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
David R. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from a special assessment lien. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis
of res judicata. Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d
* 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).
FILED
JUL 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15132
1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Smith’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Smith’s claims could have been raised in a prior
state court action that involved the same primary rights and parties, and resulted in
a final judgment on the merits. See Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa
Barbara, 604 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth 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) (“Res judicata bars the
litigation not only of issues that were actually litigated but also issues that could
have been litigated.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of
review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be
futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --