
    Jerry A. BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. HARRIS, Lieutenant, All being sued in their Individual Capacities; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56506
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 26, 2017
    Jerry A. Burton, Pro Se
    Andrew M. Gibson, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Kevin Allen Voth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Jerry A. Burton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations relating to his gang validation and placement in the secured housing unit (“SHU”) for an indefinite term. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim preclusion. Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Burton’s action as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because the parties or their privies have already litigated Burton’s claims in California state court. See Furnace v. Giurbino, 838 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2016) (California habeas petition had claim preclusive effect on subsequent civil litigation because both actions challenged plaintiffs gang validation and SHU placement); Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 2014) (reasoned denials of California habeas petitions have claim preclusive effect).

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).

Defendants’ request for judicial notice, filed on August 10,2016, is granted.

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