Unpublished Disposition, 919 F.2d 144 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

James A. Bringle and Norma L. Bringle appeal pro se the summary judgments in favor of the defendants in their civil rights action. The Bringles contend that the district court erred in determining that this action is barred by collateral estoppel. We review de novo, Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1990), and affirm.

The Bringles filed this civil rights action against several Washington state and local officials who participated in dependency proceedings regarding the Bringles' grandchildren. The Bringles' complaint alleged that Washington's dependency procedures violated their rights to due process and equal protection. The same issues that the Bringles raise in this action already have been actually and necessarily determined against them by courts of competent jurisdiction. See Bringle v. Sugarman, No. 89-35216 (9th Cir. July 31, 1990) (unpublished opinion). Therefore, the Bringles are estopped from relitigating these issues. See Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979). Moreover, as the district court correctly ruled, the Bringles cannot overcome the collateral estoppel bar by merely naming different defendants. See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 329 (1979).

AFFIRMED.