Fred A. Whitaker v. Alameda County Superior Court

972 F.2d 1348 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Fred A. WHITAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 91-16866, 92-15002. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 27, 1992. * Decided Aug. 4, 1992. Before WRIGHT, FARRIS and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Fred A. Whitaker appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his complaint, which alleged that California's vexatious litigant statutes, Cal.Civ.Proc. § 391 et seq., are unconstitutional. We affirm. 3 The preclusive effect of a state court decision is determined by the law of that state. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 ; Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379-82 (1985). Under California law, a prior decision will preclude relitigation of an issue if: (1) the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the decision was a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party…