Williams v. Clouse

Full title: Teddy S. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick CLOUSE; et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 14, 2001

23 F. App'x 681 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

23 Fed.Appx. 681 (9th Cir. 2001) Teddy S. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick CLOUSE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-55150. D.C. No. CV-98-01786-ABC. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. November 14, 2001

Submitted November 5, 2001. ^*

* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, Williams' request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

State prisoner brought action under § 1983 against police officers, alleging that officers used excessive force to effect his arrest. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Audrey B. Collins, J., granted summary judgment in favor of officers, and prisoner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that prisoner's federal action was barred by res judicata.

Affirmed. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BROWNING, KLEINFELD, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

California state prisoner Teddy S. Williams appeals the district court's summary judgment for police officers in his section 1983 action alleging that the officers used excessive force to effect his arrest. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm. ¹

1 Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 201(c), we take judicial notice of the California Court of Appeals' judgment in People v. Teddy Samuel Williams, 2d Crim. No. B133285, affirming Williams' criminal conviction in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court.

Because Williams' state criminal action and his district court action involve the same primary right, res judicata bars his district court action. See Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 147 Cal.App.3d 1170, 197 Cal.Rptr. 612, 614 (1983); Teitlebaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., 58 Cal.2d 601, 25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 560, 375 P.2d 439, 440 (1962) (holding that California law "[does] not preclude the application of collateral estoppel in a civil case to issues determined in a previous criminal prosecution.").

Given our holding, we do not reach Williams' contention that his action is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey because he is no longer in custody for his resisting arrest conviction.

Williams' request for appointment of counsel is denied. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.