NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNATHAN S. WILLIAMS, AKA No. 15-17402
Jonathan Samuel Williams,
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02526-WBS-
Plaintiff-Appellant, CMK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KURK, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Johnathan Williams, AKA Johnathan Samuel Williams, a California state
prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action on the basis of res
judicata because Williams’s claim was raised, or could have been raised, in his
prior action between the same parties, and the prior action resulted in a final
judgment on the merits. See id. (explaining requirements for res judicata under
federal law and that res judicata bars “any claims that were raised or could have
been raised in a prior action” (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis
omitted)). Contrary to Williams’s contention, res judicata applies even though
defendants were not served in the prior action.
Williams’s appeal of the denial of his motions for preliminary injunctive
relief is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1449-50
(9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, reversal of denial of
preliminary injunctive relief would have no practical consequences, and the issue
is therefore moot).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams’s motion
for reconsideration because Williams failed to demonstrate any grounds warranting
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
2 15-17402
We reject as meritless Williams’s contentions that the district court erred in
its decisions regarding Williams’s appointed counsel; that there was misconduct by
the magistrate judge that affected Williams’s right to due process and equal
protection; and that his cell searches affected the outcome of this case.
Williams opposed request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 21) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-17402