James Davis v. County of Maui
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff-Appellant James R. Davis (Davis) appeals the district court’s decision granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and denying his motion to amend his complaint. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount additional facts except as necessary to explain the decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 (c)(3) and 1291, and we affirm.
“Federal courts must accord a state court judgment the same preclusive effect that the judgment would receive in the rendering state’s courts.” Skysign Int’l, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir.2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1738 ). “This rule extends to state administrative adjudications of legal and factual issue[s].” Id. (citing Misischia v. Pirie, 60 F.3d 626, 629 (9th Cir.1995)). However, “[t]o have preclusive effect in federal court, the state administrative determination must [also] satisfy the requirements of fairness set out in” United States v. Utah Construction and Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 , 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966). Misischia, 60 F.3d at 629 .