Norman Gerald Daniels Iii v. STUART SHERMAN, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMAN GERALD DANIELS III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STUART SHERMAN, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-16262
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01312-LJO-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Norman Gerald Daniels III appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an
access-to-courts claim related to his legal blindness. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of
* 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
JAN 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16262
claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Daniels’s action as barred by the
doctrine of claim preclusion because Daniels alleged nearly identical claims
against defendant, or his privy, in a prior federal action in which there was a final
judgment on the merits. See id. (elements of claim preclusion); Tahoe-Sierra Pres.
Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir.
2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if there is
substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality
of interest.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --