5 6 Michael J. Horton v. D. Bradbury, Cdw (a);

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 1
2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3
4
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 5
6
MICHAEL J. HORTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. BRADBURY, CDW (A); et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-17514
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-06411-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
7
Appeal from the United States District Court 8
for the Northern District of California 9
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding 10
11
Submitted August 15, 2018**
12
13
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 14
California state prisoner Michael J. Horton appeals pro se from the district 15
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth and 16
Fourteenth Amendment claims arising from a notation in his custody records. We 17
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the 18
* 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
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-17514
basis of claim preclusion. Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 1
420 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. 2
The district court properly dismissed Horton’s action as barred by claim 3
preclusion because Horton’s claims were raised in a prior state habeas action that 4
involved the same rights and parties, and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. 5
See San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 6
725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of claim preclusion under California law); see 7
also Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 2014) 8
(reasoned denials of California habeas petitions have claim preclusive effect). 9
AFFIRMED. 10

-- 2 of 2 --