Owens v. City of Los Angeles

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 31 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD C. OWENS, doing business as No. 25-24 New Light Company, D.C. No. 2:24-cv-08642-MRA-RAO Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; IRVING R. ESTRADA, Trial Attorney, individual/official capacity; CHRISTOPHER TRAN, official/individual capacity; KURT KLIMEK, individual/official capacity; AUTURO CASTELLANOS, individual/official capacity; ANTINO HURD, individual/official capacity; ANDRES MUNOZ, individual capacity; Captain T. SCOT HARRELSON, individual/official capacity; MICHEL R. MORE, individual/official capacity as Chief of Police; ANTONIO RAMIREZ, individual/official capacity; BRANDYN MOONEY, individual/official capacity; CHRISTOPHER ALBIZURES, individual/official capacity; CHRISTOPHER GELVIN, individual/official capacity; DAVID ORLIK, individual/official capacity; DENIS AREVALO, individual/official capacity; ELIZABETH UGARTE, individual/official capacity; EMMA UGARTE, individual/official capacity; EMMA TEYECHEA, individual/official capacity; JESUS TORIS, individual/official capacity; LUIS BLANCO, individual/official capacity; MARIO VERVERA, individual/official capacity; MARK ACEVES, individual/official capacity; MARQUIS CLARK, individual/official capacity; MICHAEL ELLWOOD, individual/official capacity; MICHAEL RANDOLPH FUKUI, individual/official capacity; REY QUINTANILLA, individual/official capacity; RICKY DAVIS, individual/official capacity; STEVEN ROBLES, individual/official capacity; EMERSON TABONE, individual/official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Monica Ramirez Almadani, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 29, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

Richard C. Owens appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying him in forma pauperis status and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations during a vehicle stop and in state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Owens’s claims arising out of his vehicle stop because these claims were barred by claim preclusion. See Furnace v. Giurbino, 838 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the law of the state in which a prior judgment was entered determines its preclusive effect in federal court, and that “[i]n California, ‘claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves: (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties or parties in privity with them (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit’” (alterations omitted) (quoting DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 386 (Cal. 2015))); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 230 P.3d 342, 348 (Cal. 2010) (explaining that causes of action are generally the same when they involve the same parties and seek compensation for the same harm); see also Cal. Civ. Proc.

Code § 581c(c) (“[T]he judgment of nonsuit operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”).

The district court properly dismissed Owens’s claims arising out of his state court proceedings as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because these claims

3 25-24 amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or were “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-66 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Appellees’ motion (Docket Entry No. 15) for judicial notice is granted.

All other pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

4 25-24