Wayne Pickering v. A. Enenmoh ( 2018 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 11 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAYNE L. PICKERING, No. 16-16068
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
1:11-cv-00937-LJO-DLB
v.
A. ENENMOH, Chief Medical Officer; et MEMORANDUM*
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 13, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and STATON,** District Judge.
Wayne L. Pickering appeals the district court’s grant of judgment on the
pleadings on the basis of res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Josephine L. Staton, United States District Judge for
the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
Pickering argues that the general demurrer entered by the state court was not
on the merits, and thus his federal action was not barred by res judicata or, in the
alternative, that an exception to res judicata applies. We review “dismissal on res
judicata grounds de novo.” Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403
F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005).
Federal courts must “give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments
that those judgments would be given in the courts of the State from which the
judgments emerged.” Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982);
see also 28 U.S. C. § 1738. Therefore, “California law . . . determine[s] the
preclusive effect of the state court judgment entered.” Maldonado v. Harris, 370
F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004). Claim presentation requirements under the
California Government Claims Act (“GCA”) are “elements of the plaintiff’s cause
of action and conditions precedent to the maintenance of the action.” State v.
Superior Court of Kings Cty. (Bodde), 90 P.3d 116, 120 (Cal. 2004) (quoting
Williams v. Horvath, 548 P.2d 1125, 1128 (Cal. 1976)); see also Cal. Gov’t Code
§§ 945.4, 946.6, 950.6. The claim presentation requirement is a “state substantive
limitation couched in procedural language,” Bodde, 90 P.3d at 120 (original
alterations omitted) (quoting Williams, 548 P.2d at 1130), and not a “formal [or]
technical” requirement, McKinney v. County of Santa Clara, 168 Cal. Rptr. 89, 92
2
(Cal. Ct. App. 1980). Indeed, the McKinney Court held that “[w]hether the claim
provisions apply [to another claim] . . . [was] irrelevant at [that] point since, in any
case, the cause of action . . . would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” Id. at
93. Accordingly, the state court’s general demurrer for failure to present the claim
bars the instant action under res judicata. Because we conclude failure to present
under the GCA is preclusive, we do not reach Pickering’s arguments regarding the
effect of res judicata on the state court decisions on the statute of limitations or
private right of action.
Neither the public interest nor the injustice exceptions apply to relieve
Pickering of the res judicata effect of the GCA judgment. The instant case does not
rise to the level necessary to invoke the public interest exception. Arcadia Unified
Sch. Dist. v. State Dep’t of Educ., 825 P.2d 438, 441 (Cal 1992) (in bank). “[T]he
[injustice] doctrine [is] of doubtful validity” in California, Slater v. Blackwood,
543 P.2d 593, 595 (Cal. 1975) (in bank), and even it were valid, this is not one of
the “rare instances” for its application, Greenfield v. Mather, 194 P.2d 1, 8 (Cal.
1948).
AFFIRMED.
3