N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT HAR OLD C . HALL, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, De fe nda

nt, a nd M ARK AR

NESON, a

nd KENNETH C R OC KER , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56441 D.C . No. 2:05-c v-01977-AB C AJW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Audre y B . C ollins, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : EB EL, ** KLEINFELD, a nd GR AB ER , C i rc uit Judge s. 

# FIL E D NOV 03 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The Honora

ble David M . Ebe l , Se nior Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the T e nth C irc uit, sitting by de s igna tion.Pla intiff Ha rold C . Ha ll a

ppe a ls thesum

m ary judgm e nt e nte re d in fa

vor of De fe nda nts M a rk Arne son a

nd Ke nne t

h C roc ke r. R e v ie wing denovo, Ford v. C ity of Yakim a , 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe r c uriam ), we a ffirm . Ha ll’ s c la im

tha t his c onfe ssion wa s c oe rc e d is ba rre d by the doc trine of issue pre c lusion. The

sta te tria l c ourt re a c h e d its de c ision in Hal l’ s c rim ina l c a se — finding tha

t his c onfe ssion wa s knowing, inte llige nt, a n d volunta

ry — a fte r a full a nd fa ir proc e s s tha

t involve d a

he aring, a

rgum e nts, a

nd a re a s one d e xpla nation of the answe r. Afte r Ha ll wa s c onvic t e d, he a ppe a le d to theC a lifornia Supre m e C ourt, whic h a ffirm e d his judgme nt of c o nvic tion a nd the re by

re je c t e d the argum e nt tha

t his c o n fe ssion wa s c oe rc e d. This c ourt la te r orde re d tha

t a writ of ha be a s c orpus be g ra

nte d, Ha ll v. Dir. of C orr. (Ha ll I), 343 F.3d 976, 985 (9th C ir. 2003) (pe r c uriam ), but on a c om ple te ly diffe re nt issue ; no subse que nt proc e e dings have c o nc lude d

e i the r that

the tria l c o urt’ s volunta

ry -c onfe ssion de c ision wa s e rrone ous or tha

t the c ourt m aking thede c i sion la c ke d jurisdic tion or a c te d in som e othe r funda

m e nta lly inva lid wa

y , se e Ha ll v. C ity of Los Ange l e s (Ha ll III), 697 F.3d 1059 (9th C ir. 2012); Hall v. C ity of Los Ange l e s (Ha ll II), No. 07-56853, 2009 W L 2020851 (9th C ir. July 13, 2009) (unpublishe d de c ision). Under C a lifornia la w, the re fore , the tria l c ourt’ s de c ision on volunta rine ss wa s " fina l" be c a use it wa s no longer subje c t to dire c t a ppe a l. Se e Pe ople v. Sim s, 651 P.2d 2321, 332 (C a l. 1982) (de fining finality unde r state la

w), supe rse de d by

sta tute on othe r grounds a s sta

te d in Gika s v. Zolin, 863 P.2d 745, 751–52 (Ca l. 1993); Pe ople v. C oope r, 57 C a l. R ptr. 3d 389, 405–06 (Ct. App. 2007) (sa m e ). The re is no unfa irne ss in a

pply ing issue pre c lusion in the se c irc um s ta nc e s. Se e Luc ido v. Supe rior C ourt, 795 P.2d 1223, 1226–27 (C a l. 1990) (looking to c o nside rations of public polic y

be fore a pply ing issuepre c lusion). AFFIRM E D.

3