Jose Morales v. Pbsp , 481 F. App'x 393 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS MORALES, No. 11-17354
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:06-cv-04175-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jose Luis Morales appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations in connection with his 2006 prison disciplinary proceedings. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hawkins v. Risley, 984
F.2d 321, 323 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (issue preclusion). We may affirm on
any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59
(9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal was proper because the state court’s denial of Morales’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his prison disciplinary proceedings and
placement in the Security Housing Unit precluded Morales from relitigating the
same issues in a § 1983 action. See Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341,
1347 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[B]ecause of the nature of a state habeas proceeding, a
decision actually rendered should preclude an identical issue from being relitigated
in a subsequent § 1983 action if the state habeas court afforded a full and fair
opportunity for the issue to be heard and determined under federal standards.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-17354