FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD C. HALL, No. 13-56441
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01977-ABC-
AJW
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant,
and
MARK ARNESON, and KENNETH
CROCKER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 6, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: EBEL,** KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable David M. Ebel, Senior United States Circuit Judge for
the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Plaintiff Harold C. Hall appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of
Defendants Mark Arneson and Kenneth Crocker. Reviewing de novo, Ford v. City
of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), we affirm.
Hall’s claim that his confession was coerced is barred by the doctrine of
issue preclusion. The state trial court reached its decision in Hall’s criminal
case—finding that his confession was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary—after a
full and fair process that involved a hearing, arguments, and a reasoned explanation
of the answer. After Hall was convicted, he appealed to the California Supreme
Court, which affirmed his judgment of conviction and thereby rejected the
argument that his confession was coerced. This court later ordered that a writ of
habeas corpus be granted, Hall v. Dir. of Corr. (Hall I), 343 F.3d 976, 985 (9th Cir.
2003) (per curiam), but on a completely different issue; no subsequent proceedings
have concluded either that the trial court’s voluntary-confession decision was
erroneous or that the court making the decision lacked jurisdiction or acted in some
other fundamentally invalid way, see Hall v. City of Los Angeles (Hall III), 697
F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2012); Hall v. City of Los Angeles (Hall II), No. 07-56853,
2009 WL 2020851 (9th Cir. July 13, 2009) (unpublished decision). Under
California law, therefore, the trial court’s decision on voluntariness was "final"
because it was no longer subject to direct appeal. See People v. Sims, 651 P.2d
2
321, 332 (Cal. 1982) (defining finality under state law), superseded by statute on
other grounds as stated in Gikas v. Zolin, 863 P.2d 745, 751–52 (Cal. 1993);
People v. Cooper, 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 389, 405–06 (Ct. App. 2007) (same). There is
no unfairness in applying issue preclusion in these circumstances. See Lucido v.
Superior Court, 795 P.2d 1223, 1226–27 (Cal. 1990) (looking to considerations of
public policy before applying issue preclusion).
AFFIRMED.
3