Paul Carrick v. Santa Cruz County
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Paul Carrick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and statutory violations in connection with legal proceedings relating to his real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Whitman v. Mineta, 541 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Carrick’s § 1983 claims challenging the issuance and enforcement of citations on his property because the parties or their privies previously litigated the claims to final judgment in California state court. See Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, 604 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir.2010) (describing California res judicata requirements); Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir.2006) (California judgment is final for res judicata purposes after resolution of appeal).
- To the extent Carrick alleged a denial of due process by the state court in ruling on discovery issues and entering judgment against him, the district court properly dismissed the claim as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609 , 613 (9th…