Ruben Valdez v. Matthew Cate

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 11, 2020
• Docket: 19-16123
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUBEN VALDEZ, No. 19-16123

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01352-JAM-DMC

v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of Corrections, California Department of Corrections; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

J. MAYHEW, Institutional Gang Investigator Lieutenant, CSP - Sacramento; et al.,

Defendants.

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

Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

* 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). California state prisoner Ruben Valdez appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

violations in connection with his gang validation and placement in the secured

housing unit (“SHU”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Furnace v. Guirbino, 838 F.3d 1019, 1023 n.1 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissal

on the basis of res judicata); Fajardo v. County of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699

(9th Cir. 1999) (judgment on the pleading). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Valdez’s action as barred by the

doctrine of res judicata because Valdez litigated the same claims in California state

court against the same parties or their privies which resulted in a final judgment on

the merits. See Furnace, 838 F.3d at 1023-26 (setting forth the elements of claim

preclusion under California law and finding a California habeas petition had a

preclusive effect on federal civil rights action because both actions challenged

plaintiff’s gang validation and SHU placement).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Valdez’s motion to

amend his complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Bonin v.

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth standard of review and

explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-16123