[Unpublished]
Kelly Smith appeals the district courts
1
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD), its counsel, and four Nebraska state judges. Upon de novo review, see Waters v. Madson, 921 F.3d 725, 734 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review), we affirm. We agree with the district court that Smiths claims against the judges are barred by judicial immunity, see Schottel v. Young, 687 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 2012) (judge is immune from suit, except for non-judicial actions or for actions taken absent all jurisdiction); and that his due process claims were predicated on an issue already decided against him in a prior state court action, see Haberer v. Woodbury Cty., 188 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 1999) (federal courts are obligated to give preclusive effect to issues decided by state courts); Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577, 843 N.W.2d 812, 816 (2014) (elements of issue preclusion under Nebraska law). We also find that Smiths equal protection and conspiracy claims failed, see Robbins v. Becker, 794 F.3d 988, 996 (8th Cir. 2015) (class-of-one equal protection claim failed where plaintiffs did not allege facts showing they were similarly situated to others treated more favorably); City of Omaha Emps. Betterment Assn v. City of Omaha, 883 F.2d 650, 652 (8th Cir. 1989) (conspiracy claim requires plaintiff to allege with particularity that defendants reached understanding to violate his rights); and we find no merit to his allegations of district court bias, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for finding of bias).
Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and we deny CPNRDs motion.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable John M. Gerrard, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
PER CURIAM.