JERRY BURTON V. R. HARRIS, No. 15-56506 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JERRY A. BURTON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-56506 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:08-cv-05834-GHK-CW MEMORANDUM* R. HARRIS, Lieutenant, All being sued in their Individual Capacities; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Jerry A. Burton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations relating to his gang validation and placement in the secured housing unit * 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). (“SHU”) for an indefinite term. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim preclusion. Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Burton’s action as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because the parties or their privies have already litigated Burton’s claims in California state court. See Furnace v. Giurbino, 838 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2016) (California habeas petition had claim preclusive effect on subsequent civil litigation because both actions challenged plaintiff’s gang validation and SHU placement); Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 2014) (reasoned denials of California habeas petitions have claim preclusive effect). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Defendants’ request for judicial notice, filed on August 10, 2016, is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 15-56506

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.