Unpublished Disposition, 935 F.2d 275 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

* On December 6, 1984, Sanchez-Berridi was charged with knowingly molesting a minor, Julia Ann Moncur, a violation of California Penal Code Sec. 647(a), and with prowling around an inhabited dwelling, a violation of California Penal Code Sec. 647(g). In total, Sanchez-Berridi was charged with three misdemeanor counts. He was acquitted on one count with the jury deadlocking on the remaining two. Shortly thereafter, Sanchez-Berridi pled guilty to violating California Penal Code Sec. 647(f), public intoxication, as part of a plea bargain on the two remaining counts.

During the pendency of these proceedings, Sanchez-Berridi was suspended from his employment with the Santa Barbara School District as a bilingual tutor. Later, Sanchez-Berridi was terminated from the position, effective July 5, 1985, on the grounds of misconduct, insubordination, inefficiency, and inexcusable absence without leave. On September 25, 1985, Sanchez-Berridi filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming each of the defendants-appellees in the present case as defendants, as well as many others. Ultimately, all of Sanchez-Berridi's claims were resolved in favor of the defendants, either pursuant to a dismissal without leave to amend or summary judgment. Sanchez-Berridi's appeal to this court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On May 18, 1988, Sanchez-Berridi again filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming as defendants many of those named in his previous lawsuit. Eventually, the district court dismissed his second complaint as, inter alia, barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This appeal followed.

"The doctrine of 'claim preclusion' bars the relitigation of a claim, even if the particular theories of recovery or defenses raised in the second proceeding were not actually litigated in the first action." Shaw v. State of California Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 1986). For a claim preclusion to apply, "there must be (1) a valid, final judgment, (2) rendered on the merits, (3) a subsequent action involving the same parties or those in privity with them, (4) that is based on the same cause of action or claim." Hooker v. Klein, 573 F.2d 1360, 1367 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 932 (1978). Each of these elements is satisfied here. The prior action was dismissed on the merits. The parties are identical and both suits are based on the same claims, e.g., Sanchez-Berridi's 1984 prosecution and subsequent termination from employment. Accordingly, the doctrine of claim preclusion bars this present suit. The motion to strike the brief of appellees Julia Ann Moncur, Larry Moncur, and Diane Moncur is denied.

AFFIRMED.