925 F2d 1469 A'Giza v. San Bernardino West Side Community Development Corp
925 F.2d 1469
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Zuri A'GIZA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
SAN BERNARDINO WEST SIDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP., et
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 1991.*
Decided Feb. 22, 1991.
Before O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Zuri A'Giza appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to state a claim. A'Giza contends the defendants violated his constitutional rights when they evicted him from low-income housing. We review de novo, Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 840 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir.1988), and affirm.1
In March, 1988, A'Giza signed a lease agreement with the San Bernardino West Side Community Development Corporation ("CDC") for a one bedroom apartment. A'Giza listed himself as the sole occupant of the apartment. Several weeks later, A'Giza advised defendant Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino ("Housing Authority") that as of April 2, 1988, he was residing in his apartment with six additional occupants. The CDC and the Housing Authority advised A'Giza that he was in violation of the lease agreement and that he would be given an eviction notice if the occupants did not remove themselves from the apartment. In June 1988, A'Giza was given a five day notice to quit and then a 30 day notice to quit; both notices went ignored. In July 1988 the CDC filed an unlawful detainer complaint against A'Giza in the San Bernardino Municipal Court. The municipal court ruled in favor of the CDC, and A'Giza was evicted from the apartment.
A'Giza contends that the defendants conspired to unlawfully deprive him of his right to low-income housing. Defendants contend A'Giza is barred from bringing this action on the basis of res judicata.
Where a federal constitutional claim is based on the same asserted wrong as a state action and the parties are the same, res judicata will bar the federal constitutional claim, even if that claim was not asserted specifically in state court. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738 (1982); Trujillo v. County of Santa Clara, 775 F.2d 1359, 1363 (9th Cir.1985); see also Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir.1988) (federal court must apply res judicata rules of particular state to judgments issued by that state).
Under California law, res judicata precludes a plaintiff from litigating a claim if the claim relates to the same "primary right" as a claim in a prior action, the prior judgment was final and on the merits, and the plaintiff was a party to the prior action. Trujillo, 775 F.2d at 1366 (citing Slater v. Blackwood, 15 Cal.3d 791, 795, 543 P.2d 593, 594, 126 Cal.Rptr. 225, 226 (1975)). "[I]f two actions involve the same injury to the plaintiff and the same wrong by the defendant, then the same primary right is at stake even if in the second suit the plaintiff pleads different theories of recovery, seeks different forms of relief and/or adds new facts supporting recovery." Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 147 Cal.App.3d 1170, 1174-75, 197 Cal.Rptr. 612, 614 (1983).
Here, the allegations in A'Giza's complaint and on appeal concern the defendants' alleged conspiracy to unlawfully deprive him of low-income housing. A'Giza's claim is based on the same right to possession and denial of housing, however, which was the central issue in the California state court unlawful detainer proceedings. A'Giza was required to raise his constitutional claims as an affirmative defense in the action against him in state court. See Zimmerman v. Stotter, 160 Cal.App.3d 1067, 1073-75, 207 Cal.Rptr. 108, 112-13 (1984); Abstract Inv. Co. v. Hutchinson, 204 Cal.App.2d 242, 245-49, 22 Cal.Rptr. 309, 311-13 (1962). Therefore, he is precluded from relitigating those issues in federal court. See Trujillo, 775 F.2d at 1363.2
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
We may affirm a correct result on an alternate basis supported by the record. KOLA, Inv. v. United States, 882 F.2d 361, 363 (9th Cir.1989)
A'Giza's motion to revoke the district court's judgment is denied