Filed: Apr. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 13, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED APR 13 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROGER DAVID TOWERS, No. 18-16712 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02597-JAM-KJN v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Roger David Tower
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED APR 13 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROGER DAVID TOWERS, No. 18-16712 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02597-JAM-KJN v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Roger David Towers..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
APR 13 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGER DAVID TOWERS, No. 18-16712
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02597-JAM-KJN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Roger David Towers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising
from the land use designation of his property. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s application of the doctrines
*
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).
of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Littlejohn v. United States,
321 F.3d 915,
919 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
Thompson v. Paul,
547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal was proper because plaintiff’s land use claims involved litigation
of the same primary right previously and finally adjudicated by the state Supreme
Court. See Dodd v. Hood River County,
136 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th Cir. 1998)
(providing that federal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive
effect as they would be given by courts of that state); Slater v. Blackwood,
543
P.2d 593, 594-95 (Cal. 1975) (explaining California’s claim preclusion doctrine).
The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claims pertaining to
restraining orders as barred under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal
courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court
proceedings. See ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund,
754 F.3d
754, 758-59 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth de novo standard of review, requirements
for Younger abstention in civil cases, and explaining that “the date for determining
whether Younger applies is the date the federal action is filed” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of
court filings and other matters of public record. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles,
250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and stating that
2 18-16712
court may take judicial notice of matters of public record).
We reject as without merit plaintiff’s contentions that the district court’s
judgment is void, and that the magistrate judge was biased and violated plaintiff’s
due process rights.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
The parties’ requests for judicial notice and related filings (Docket Entry
Nos. 21, 29 and 34) are denied as unnecessary. Plaintiff’s request in his opening
brief for an order to show cause is denied. Plaintiff’s request in his reply brief for
sanctions against defense counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-16712