United States v. 2020-07-10 | 19-15381 | SILUS VALSON V. J. KELSO | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SILUS MARDEL VALSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

J. CLARK KELSO; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15381

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01420-DAD-EPG

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 08, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Silus Mardel Valson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Furnace v. Giurbino, 838 F.3d 1019, 1023 n.1 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissal

*
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 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15381
based on claim preclusion); Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d
708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (judgment on the pleadings). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Valson’s action because Valson raised,
or could have raised, his federal claims in his prior state action, which involved the
same primary rights and parties or their privies, and resulted in a final judgment.
See Furnace, 838 F.3d at 1023-26 (explaining that federal courts apply California’s
rules of preclusion to determine the preclusive effect of a California state court
judgment; affirming dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion where a challenge
involved “the same actions by the same group of officials at the same time that
resulted in the same harm” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); DKN
Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 386-89 (Cal. 2015) (setting forth
California’s standards for claim preclusion; discussing privity in the context of
vicarious liability); Burdette v. Carrier Corp., 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185, 196-98 (Ct.
App. 2008), as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 14, 2008) (vicarious liability is
sufficient to establish privity).
AFFIRMED.