N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

JOSEPH R . LEON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,

v. SAN JOSE POLIC E DEPAR TM ENT; C ITY OF SAN JOSE; KEVIN M C C LUR E, Offic e r B a dge #3979; B R IAN LOFTUS, Offic e r B a dge #3965,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-15433 D.C . No. 5:11-c v-05504-HR L

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Howa rd R . Lloy d, M a gistra

t e Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 21, 2017 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
MAY 11 2017 M O LLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : SC HR OEDER a nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LOGAN, *** Distric t Judge

. Appe lla n t J o sep h Le on (“ Le on” ) a ppe a ls the gra n t of sum

m a ry judgm e nt in fa vor o f Appe lle e s Sa n Jose Polic e De pa rtm e nt (“ SJPD” ) a nd Offic e rs Ke vin M c C lure

a nd B ria n Loftus on Le on’ s § 1983 a c tion a lle ging viola tions of h is Fourth and Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt ri gh t s . W e re vie w de n ovo t he distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of

s um m a ry judgm e n t. Oliv e r v . K e lle r , 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th C ir. 2002). W e h av e jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm

. 1. The Appe lle e s we re e ntitle d to sum m a ry judgm e nt o n the Fourth A m e ndm e nt

c la im

. A § 1 9 8 3 cla im brought in fe de ra l c ourt is subje c t to princ iple s of issue a n d

c la im pre c lusion by

a prior sta

te c ourt judgm e nt. Alle n v . Mc C urry , 449 U.S. 90, 94- 95 (1980). The a l le ge d viola tion of Le on’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt rights w a s the ide ntic a l issue de c ide d b y the sta

te c rim ina l c ourt in h is m otion to v a c a te its judgm e nt, it wa s
ne c e ssa rily de c ide d in a fina l d e c ision on the m e rits, a nd Le o n wa s the sa m e pa rty

a ga inst whom c olla

te ra l e stoppe l is now invoke d. Luc ido v . Supe rior C ourt , 795 P.2d 1223, 1225 (C a l. 1990). The re quire m e nts for c olla te ra l e stoppe l u nde r C a lifornia l a w
we re sa t isfie d, a nd Le on h a d a full a nd fa ir opportunity to litiga te the c la im be fore the sta te c o urt. Haupt v . Dillard , 17 F.3d 285, 288 (9th C ir. 1994).

* * * The Honora

ble Ste ve n Pa

ul Loga n, Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa t ion. 22. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s al so p r o p er on Le o n’ s c la im tha t t he Appe lle e s viola te d the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt by disc rim ina ting a ga i nst him be c a use of his ra c e . To survive sum

m a ry j udgm e nt on a

n e qua l prote c t ion c l a im , a pla intiff m ust produc e
e vide nc e suffic ie nt to p e rm i t a re a s ona ble trie r of fa c t t o f

i n d b y a pre ponde ra nc e of the e vide n c e tha t the d e fe nda nt’ s de c i sion wa s ra c ia l ly m otiva te d. Se rrano v . Franc is, 345 F.3d 1071, 1 0 82 ( 9th C ir. 2003). Le on’ s c om pla int c onta ine d no a lle ga tions supporting a n e qua l prote c tion c la im , a nd none of the m a te ria ls he proffe re d ga ve rise to a ge nuine issue tha t the A ppe lle e s a c te d with disc rim ina tory i nte nt in this c a se . Se e Bingham v . C

ity of Manhattan Be ac h , 341 F.3d 939, 948 (9th C ir. 2003). The distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt is AFFIRM E D .

3