Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0977-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph R. LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT; City of San Jose; Kevin McClure, Officer Badge #3979; Brian Loftus, Officer Badge #3965, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15433
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 21, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed May 11, 2017
    Tiega Noel Varlack, Attorney, Varlack Legal Services, Hayward, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Clifford Scott Greenberg, Senior Litigating Attorney, Malgorzata Laskowska, Deputy City Attorney, San Jose City Attorney’s Office, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LOGAN, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Steven Paul Logan, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Joseph Leon (“Leon”) appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees San Jose Police Department (“SJPD”) and Officers Kevin McClure and Brian Loftus on Leon’s § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The Appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim. A § 1983 claim brought in federal court is subject to principles of issue and claim preclusion by a prior state court judgment. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94-95, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980). The alleged violation of Leon’s Fourth Amendment rights was the identical issue decided by the state criminal court in his motion to vacate its judgment, it was necessarily decided in a final decision on the merits, and Leon was the same party against whom collateral estoppel is now invoked. Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767, 795 P.2d 1223, 1225 (1990). The requirements for collateral estoppel under California law were satisfied, and Leon had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim before the state court. Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285, 288 (9th Cir. 1994).

2. Summary judgment was also proper on Leon’s claim that the Appellees violated the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against him because of his race. To survive summary judgment on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s decision was racially motivated. Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). Leon’s complaint contained .no allegations supporting an equal protection claim, and none of the materials he proffered gave rise to a genuine issue that the Appellees acted with discriminatory intent in this case. See Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach, 341 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir. 2003).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.