Hussein Hussein v. Mary Dugan

MEMORANDUM

These consolidated appeals arise out of two district court cases. Because the complex factual and procedural history is known to the parties, we need not recount it here.

I

In considering appeal 08-17443, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Dugan and Wilds.

A

The district court correctly concluded that Hussein was collaterally estopped from asserting the claims against Dugan in this action because he had previously litigated the same claims in a prior action that was resolved against him. Under our case law, three factors determine whether collateral estoppel applies: “(1) the issue at stake must be identical to the one alleged in the prior litigation; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated [by the party against whom preclusion is asserted] in the prior litigation; and (3) the determination of the issue in the prior litigation must have been a critical and necessary part of the judgment in the earlier action.” McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2004). Here, the same First Amendment question that determines Dugan’s liability was also at issue in the prior litigation. Hussein actually…