FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 01 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADOLFO NARANJO, Jr., No. 16-56867
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:13-cv-02685-JAK-SH
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public MEMORANDUM*
entity; LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a law
enforcement agency; LOS ANGELES
COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, a public board entity;
LEROY D. BACA, elected Sheriff of Los
Angeles County; RAY LEYVA, Captain,
deputy sheriff employed by LASD;
FRANK ROTH, Sergeant, deputy sheriff
employed by LASD; WILLIAM J.
FUJIOKA, CEO of Los Angeles County;
DOES, 1 through 20 inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2018
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DRAIN,** District
Judge.
Adolfo Naranjo, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
California Government Code § 3304(b) actions in which he claimed he was denied
due process when he was removed from his deputy sheriff position and reassigned
to the position of a warehouse worker aide without a full hearing. The
reassignment was made after a psychological evaluation found him to be unfit for
duty as a deputy. Naranjo had the opportunity to present medical evidence on his
own behalf.
In state court writ proceedings, the California Superior Court determined
that he was not entitled to a full hearing. Naranjo’s principal argument on appeal is
that the District Court erred in giving preclusive effect to the state court decision.
At issue in state court was whether the Civil Service Rules entitled him to the full
hearing offered to those against whom punitive action is taken. The state court
determined that the action taken by the County was not punitive; it was done for
medical reasons and not for purposes of discipline. Accordingly, the state court
held that the County was in compliance with the Public Safety Officers Procedural
**
The Honorable Gershwin A. Drain, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
2
Bill of Rights Act. See Cal. Gov. Code § 3304(b). Naranjo is barred by res
judicata and collateral estoppel from relitigating that claim and the underlying
issues in the District Court. See People v. Barragan, 83 P.3d 480, 492 (Cal. 2004).
Naranjo nevertheless contends that he is entitled to litigate his federal claim
of denial of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To the extent that the claim was
not actually litigated in state court, however, it could have been. Such a claim is
barred. See Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 51 P.3d 297, 302 (Cal. 2002)
(“Under [the res judicata] doctrine, all claims based on the same cause of action
must be decided in a single suit; if not brought initially, they may not be raised at a
later date.”). Hence, the District Court correctly concluded that the federal claim
was precluded.
Naranjo also challenges the dismissal of his Monell v. Department of Social
Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), claim without leave to amend. The
dismissal was founded upon res judicata and collateral estoppel principles as well.
No amendment has been suggested that would alter the nature of the remedy
sought or the policy challenged. Thus, any amendment would have been futile.
See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.
2011) (citation omitted) (“Although leave to amend should be given freely, a
3
district court may dismiss without leave where a plaintiff’s proposed amendments
would fail to cure the pleading deficiencies and amendment would be futile.”).
AFFIRMED.
4