Brody

MEMORANDUM **

Robert and Charlotte Brody, d/b/a King Blossom Natural, appeal the district court’s summary judgment order finding that the administrative preclusion doctrine barred their complaint challenging the constitutionality of sections 16-461-010(e) and 16^403-142 of the Washington Administrative Code. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

‘We review de novo the district court’s determination that res judicata and collateral estoppel are available.” Miller v. County of Santa Cruz, 39 F.3d 1030, 1032 (9th Cir.1994). Our analysis is different but we fully agree with the district court’s result. The final unreviewed administrative decision of the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA”) rejecting Plaintiffs’ claims precludes Plaintiffs’ separate suit against the WSDA seeking damages and declaratory relief for constitutional violations. Plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate constitutional claims within the administrative process or upon judicial review to Washington state courts. See id. at 1032-33 (reiterating that, as a matter of federal common law, preclusion of factual and legal determinations applies to unreviewed…