Johnathan Williams v. Kurk ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       JUL 13 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOHNATHAN S. WILLIAMS, AKA                      No. 15-17402
    Jonathan Samuel Williams,
    D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02526-WBS-
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            CMK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    KURK, Dr.; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 10, 2018**
    Before:      CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Johnathan Williams, AKA Johnathan Samuel Williams, a California state
    prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal on the basis
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    of res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 
    297 F.3d 953
    , 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and we
    affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action on the basis of res
    judicata because Williams’s claim was raised, or could have been raised, in his
    prior action between the same parties, and the prior action resulted in a final
    judgment on the merits. See 
    id.
     (explaining requirements for res judicata under
    federal law and that res judicata bars “any claims that were raised or could have
    been raised in a prior action” (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis
    omitted)). Contrary to Williams’s contention, res judicata applies even though
    defendants were not served in the prior action.
    Williams’s appeal of the denial of his motions for preliminary injunctive
    relief is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 
    954 F.2d 1441
    , 1449-50
    (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, reversal of denial of
    preliminary injunctive relief would have no practical consequences, and the issue
    is therefore moot).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams’s motion
    for reconsideration because Williams failed to demonstrate any grounds warranting
    relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 
    5 F.3d 1255
    ,
    1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief
    under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
    2                                       15-17402
    We reject as meritless Williams’s contentions that the district court erred in
    its decisions regarding Williams’s appointed counsel; that there was misconduct by
    the magistrate judge that affected Williams’s right to due process and equal
    protection; and that his cell searches affected the outcome of this case.
    Williams opposed request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 21) is
    denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                    15-17402