Larry Heggem v. Andrea Holmes , 551 F. App'x 373 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY GENE HEGGEM, No. 12-36014
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01997-RSM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREA HOLMES, Maiden name
“Mathern”; JOHN DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Larry Gene Heggem appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendant Holmes violated his constitutional rights in connection with the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
revocation of his Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (“DOSA”) placement and
his return to prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a district court’s application of the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue
preclusion. Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2003). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Heggem’s claims that did not
necessarily involve the revocation of Heggem’s DOSA sentence as barred by the
doctrine of claim preclusion because those claim were raised or could have been
raised in the prior federal action that Heggem brought against Holmes in 2007. See
Owens v. Kaiser Found. Heath Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001)
(setting forth elements of claim preclusion under federal law).
The district court properly dismissed Heggem’s claims that implicated the
validity of the revocation of Heggem’s DOSA sentence as barred by the doctrine of
issue preclusion because the issue of the validity of the revocation of Heggem’s
DOSA sentence was previously decided by the Washington Supreme Court when it
denied Heggem’s personal restraint petition. See Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp.
Dist. No. 1, 96 P.3d 957, 960-61 (Wash. 2004) (setting forth elements of issue
preclusion under Washington law).
2 12-36014
We reject Heggem’s contentions concerning his attempt to amend the
complaint in his prior federal action and the merits of his claims.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-36014