Djordjevic

MEMORANDUM ***

Djordjevic failed to bring a timely administrative mandamus action in state court to challenge the revocation of his conditional use permit. See Cal.Civ.Proc. Code §§ 1094.5, 1094.6(b). Thus, the administrative decision to revoke his permit has the effect of a final state court judgment. See Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal.4th 61 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 316 , 5 P.3d 874, 876 (2000); Westlake Cmty. Hosp. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 465 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 90 , 551 P.2d 410, 421 (1976); Briggs v. City of Rolling Hills Estates, 40 Cal.App.4th 637 , 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 33 (1995).

We are required to give preclusive effect to the findings of state administrative tribunals in subsequent civil rights actions. See Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 799 , 106 S.Ct. 3220 , 92 L.Ed.2d 635 (1986); Miller v. County of Santa Cruz, 39 F.3d 1030, 1032-38 (9th Cir.1994). Preclusion “extend[s] to state administrative adjudications of legal as well as factual issues, even if unreviewed, so long as the state court proceeding satisfies the requirements of fairness outlined in [United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 , 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966)…