eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-09

Lawrence Wallace v. United States ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAWRENCE WALLACE,                               No. 19-55964
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:17-cv-01794-MWF-SS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Lawrence Wallace appeals pro se from the district court’s
*
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).
judgment dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act action alleging negligence and
battery. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. San
Remo Hotel L.P. v. San Francisco City & County,
    364 F.3d 1088
    , 1094 (9th Cir.
2004) (dismissal based on issue preclusion); Resnick v. Hayes,
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447
(9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wallace’s action as barred by issue
preclusion because the issues involved in the negligence and battery claims were
actually litigated and decided in Wallace’s prior action under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971).
See Taylor v. Sturgell,
    553 U.S. 880
    , 892 (2008) (issue preclusion bars “successive
litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court
determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context
of a different claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Paulo v.
Holder,
    669 F.3d 911
    , 917 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for federal issue
preclusion).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests, including those set forth in the opening
brief, are denied.
2                                     19-55964
The Clerk will file the opening brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 12.
AFFIRMED.
3                                   19-55964