1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018 4 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 5 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL J. HORTON, No. 17-17514 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-06411-WHA v. MEMORANDUM* D. BRADBURY, CDW (A); et al., Defendants-Appellees.

8 Appeal from the United States District Court 9 for the Northern District of California 10 William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding 12 Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

15 California state prisoner Michael J. Horton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims arising from a notation in his custody records. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the

* 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).

1 basis of claim preclusion. Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

3 The district court properly dismissed Horton’s action as barred by claim preclusion because Horton’s claims were raised in a prior state habeas action that involved the same rights and parties, and resulted in a final judgment on the merits.

6 See San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 7 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of claim preclusion under California law); see also Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 2014) (reasoned denials of California habeas petitions have claim preclusive effect).

10 AFFIRMED.

2 17-17514