Opinion ID: 737164
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gage's Other Claims

Text: 17 Gage lists a number of other reasons why collateral estoppel should not apply. We are unpersuaded by any of them. 18 Gage argues that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims, however, a state court of general jurisdiction undoubtedly has jurisdiction over claims relating to state prison officials' alleged violations of state and federal laws. Gage also argues the state court did not accept jurisdiction over the parties because it denied the writ rather than issue it or issue an order to show cause. In support of this contention he cites California Rules of Court § 260(a) and California Penal Code § 1477, neither of which suggests that a denial of a writ without an order to show cause means the court declined jurisdiction. Finally, Gage claims that Tristan failed to meet the burden of proof for collateral estoppel to apply. As discussed above, Tristan met the five factors set out by California law for collateral estoppel to apply, see Branson, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d at 324, and no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the prior state court judgment and its preclusive effect on this, the subsequent federal action. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 19 AFFIRMED.