Kalvin Kaldor v. Howard Skolnik, an individual, DON HELLING, an individual, STATE OF NEVADA, ex.…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as*
provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KALVIN KALDOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HOWARD SKOLNIK, an individual,
DON HELLING, an individual, STATE
OF NEVADA, ex. rel., ITS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a
political subdivision of the State of
Nevada,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17245
D.C. No. 3:10-CV-529-LRH-RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,
FILED
JUN 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior United States District Judge for the***
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2
Senior District Judge.***
Kalvin Kaldor, a former correctional officer, filed this civil rights action
alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for public statements he made to a
Nevada legislative committee regarding proposals to reduce the budget of the state
prison at which he was employed. Prior to his termination, Kaldor was granted a pre-
disciplinary hearing, which resulted in an adverse determination. He withdrew his
appeal of that determination and filed this action.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that
this action is barred by claim preclusion. Specifically, the district court held that
because “the facts supporting Kaldor’s federal action and the previous administrative
hearing are the same,” his failure to raise the wrongful termination claims at the
administrative hearing “preclude him from having those claims adjudicated by [the
district court].” Kaldor v. Skolnik, No. 3:10-cv-0529-LRH-RAM, 2011 WL 3841109,
at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 26, 2011) (citing Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1099-1100
(9th Cir. 2007)).
Kaldor’s sole argument on appeal is that, because he withdrew his appeal from
the adverse determination of the pre-disciplinary hearing, the district court erred in
holding that his complaint was barred by claim preclusion. Kaldor cannot avoid the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
preclusive effect of the pre-disciplinary hearing by forgoing an appeal that would have
entitled him to a full administrative hearing. Indeed, under Nevada law, “unreviewed
administrative determinations are binding and have preclusive effect.” Dias v. Elique,
436 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Moreover, Kaldor’s failure
to raise the allegations in his complaint at the pre-disciplinary hearing does not defeat
claim preclusion. See Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1083, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 1999)
(stating that a party’s failure to raise a defense he had the right to raise in an
administrative hearing does not defeat application of res judicata).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --