Giebel

MEMORANDUM **

We affirm the district court’s judgment for the defendants. In reaching this conclusion, we consider the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, as well as the merits of Giebel’s First Amendment claim.

I. RES JUDICATA

Res judicata does not bar completely Giebel’s federal action. Federal courts must give preclusive effect to a state court’s judgment to the same extent that such judgment would have preclusive effect in the state’s own court. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 ; Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass’n v. City of San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362, 364 (9th Cir.1993). Under Montana law, res judicata only applies if, inter alia, “the capacities of the persons are the same in reference to the subject matter and issues” in dispute. Balyeat Law v. Hatch, 284 Mont. 1 , 942 P.2d 716, 717 (Mont.1997).

Three parties are named in both the federal and state actions: Daehling, Sylvester, and Curry. Two defendants are named for the first time in the federal action: Wain and Larce. As to the defendants named in both actions, in the state *624 court action, Daehling and Curry were named in their official capacities only, while in the federal action, they are named in both their official and…