
    Kenneth J. SCHMIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUSTICES OF the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT; Members of the Judicial Council of California; Scott Drexel, in his capacity as Chief Trial Counsel for the State Bar of California; Kenneth Schwartz, in his capacity as Traffic Judge, Dept. C54, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-17195.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Dec. 22, 2010.
    Aaron Aftergood, The Aftergood Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Thomas A. Blake, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Tracey Lynne Mccormick, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, The State Bar of California Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: HAWKINS and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and PRO, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Philip M. Pro, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Attorney Kenneth J. Schmier (“Schmier”) appeals the dismissal of his federal court action seeking to enjoin enforcement of Rule 8.1115(a) of the California Rules of Court, which prohibits the citation as legal authority of any opinion not certified for publication, with some exceptions not at issue here. We affirm the district court’s holding that Schmier’s suit is barred by res judicata.

Pursuant to Rule 8.1115(a), Schmier was unable to cite several unpublished California decisions that, if precedential, he claims would exonerate certain of his clients facing criminal charges for traffic offenses. Schmier now challenges Rule 8.1115(a) as a content-based prior restraint in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article VI, § 6(d) of the California Constitution.

Schmier’s current claim is identical to one involving the same parties previously argued to, and decided on the merits by, the California courts. See Kenneth J. Schmier v. Supreme Court of Cal., 2003 WL 22954266 (Cal.App. Dec.16, 2003), review denied (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 818, 125 S.Ct. 56, 160 L.Ed.2d 25 (2004); cf. Michael Schmier v. Supreme Court of Cal., 78 Cal.App.4th 703, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 580 (2000), reh’g denied (2000), review denied (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 958, 121 S.Ct. 382, 148 L.Ed.2d 294 (2000) (raising the same First Amendment challenge to Cal. R. Ct. 976-979 (now revised and renumbered as Cal. R. Ct. 8.1105-1125) among other constitutional arguments against the same defendants, but on behalf of his brother as named plaintiff). California res judicata law therefore forecloses relitigation of this action in a second suit. See Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888, 896-97, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d 297 (2002); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 615 (9th Cir.2007) (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment, we look to state law.”). In adjudicating Schmier’s previous claim, the California Court of Appeal distinguished Rule 8.1115(a) from the funding provision at issue in Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 121 S.Ct. 1043, 149 L.Ed.2d 63 (2001), which was struck down as unconstitutional viewpoint-based discrimination because it precluded recipient lawyers from making certain arguments in court, and squarely held that Rule 8.1115(a) does not offend an attorney’s “extremely circumscribed” First Amendment right to free speech during a judicial proceeding. See Kenneth J. Schmier, 2003 WL 22954266, at *2-3 (quoting Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1071, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888 (1991)). Schmier fails to produce evidence of any material change in circumstances that might warrant setting res judicata aside, see Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City and Cnty. of S.F., 197 Cal.App.2d 133, 17 Cal.Rptr. 687, 701 (1961), nor are we convinced that this case falls within the “extremely narrow” public interest exception to res judicata contemplated by California law, see Arcadia Unified Sch. Dist. v. State Dep’t of Educ., 2 Cal.4th 251, 259, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 545, 825 P.2d 438 (1992) — an argument which we need not consider, in any event, because Schmier raises it for the first time on appeal, see Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     