SCHEER v. PASTERNAK (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Attorney Marilyn S. Scheer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims stemming from her attorney disciplinary proceedings. 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) (issue preclusion); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Scheer’s constitutional challenge to Cal. Civil Code § 2944.7 as barred by issue preclusion because the claim was predicated on issues that were resolved against Scheer in a prior state court action. See White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that California’s issue preclusion doctrine “precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings” and setting forth six criteria to determine whether an issue is precluded (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ).

The district court properly dismissed Scheer’s constitutional challenge to Cal. Rules of Court 9.16(b) because Scheer failed to state a plausible claim for relief. See Scheer v. Kelly, 817 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 2016) (California attorney disciplinary proceedings do not violate an attorney’s First Amendment, due process, or equal protection rights).

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).

Scheer’s request for this court to reconsider the denial of en banc review in Scheer v. Kelly, set forth in her opening brief, is denied.

The parties’ motions to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 12 and 22) are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.