(PC) Boone v. Salcedo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES LESHAWN BOONE, Case No. 1:20-cv-01037-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 12 v. AS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA 13 PETER SALCEDO, et al., (ECF NO. 1) 14 Defendants. 15 16 James Boone (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on May 22, 2020. (ECF No. 1). 19 Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while working as an Inmate Work Laborer at Corcoran 20 State Prison, and that he was not promptly treated for his injury. 21 Plaintiff also appears to allege that he brought a state tort action based on these 22 allegations, and that he lost at summary judgment. Thus, it appears from the face of Plaintiff’s 23 complaint that this case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 24 Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be 25 dismissed as barred by res judicata. Alternatively, if Plaintiff believes that this case is barred 26 by res judicata, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntarily dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of 27 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Plaintiff must file a response within thirty days. If Plaintiff fails to 28 file a response, this Court will recommend to an assigned district judge that this case be 1 dismissed. 2 I. APPLICABLE LAW 3 Federal courts “give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those 4 judgments would be given in the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged.” 5 Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Thus, 6 this Court will apply California law to determine the preclusive effect of the state court 7 judgment against Plaintiff. Moldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 8 Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass’n v. City of San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362, 364 (9th Cir. 1993). 9 Under California law, res judicata forecloses relitigation if “(1) A claim or issue raised 10 in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior 11 proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the 12 doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.” Pitzen 13 v. Superior Court, 120 Cal. App. 4th 1374, 1381 (2004) (citation omitted); see also Victa v. 14 Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 117, 120 (Ct. App. 1993) (res judicata 15 “foreclose[s] relitigation of a cause of action or issue that was determined in a prior case, 16 involving the same party or one in privity to it, and which ended in a final judgment on the 17 18 merits”); McKinney v. Cty. of Santa Clara, 168 Cal. Rptr. 89, 92 (Ct. App. 1980) (res judicata 19 “precludes parties and their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally 20 determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.”). 21 II. ANALYSIS 22 Plaintiff appears to allege that he brought a case in state court based on the same 23 allegations and against the same defendants. (ECF No. 1, pgs. 2 & 5). Plaintiff lost at 24 summary judgement. (Id. at 2). He then appealed, unsuccessfully. (Id.). Accordingly, the 25 second and third elements of res judicata appear to be satisfied. 26 As to the first element, it does not appear that Plaintiff is bringing identical claims. It 27 appears that Plaintiff brought state tort claims in his state court case, and that in this case 28 Plaintiff is asserting claims under the federal constitution. However, for purposes of res 1 judicata, California applies the “primary rights” theory. Under this theory, “[i]f the same 2 primary right is involved in two actions, judgment in the first bars consideration not only of all 3 matters actually raised in the first suit but also all matters which could have been raised.” 4 Gonzales v. California Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1233 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Eichman 5 v. Fotomat Corp., 147 Cal. App. 3d 1170, 1175 (1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 6 “‘[U]nder the primary rights theory, the determinative factor is the harm suffered. When two 7 actions involving the same parties seek compensation for the same harm, they generally involve 8 the same primary right.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, 9 Inc., 48 Cal. 4th 788, 798 (2010)); see also Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass’n v. City of San 10 Marcos, 989 F.2d 362, 365 (9th Cir. 1993) (“It is well settled that res judicata bars subsequent 11 actions on all grounds for recovery that could have been asserted, whether they were or not. A 12 litigant cannot avoid the preclusive effect of res judicata by failing explicitly to plead federal 13 constitutional violations in a prior state action. While every litigant deserves his or her day in 14 court, few deserve two.”) (citations omitted). 15 16 Here, Plaintiff appears to be seeking compensation for the same harms as in his state 17 action and from the same defendants. Thus, it appears that his federal claims could have been 18 asserted in his state action, and, under the primary rights theory, the first element is satisfied as 19 well. 20 As all three elements appear to be satisfied, it appears that this case is barred by the 21 doctrine of res judicata. 22 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 23 It appears from the face of the complaint that the claims in this case are barred by res 24 judicata because Plaintiff previously brought a case based on identical allegations against the 25 same defendants, litigated his case, and lost. 26 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of this order 27 to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as barred by res judicata. Alternatively, if 28 Plaintiff believes that this case is barred by res judicata, Plaintiff may file a notice of 4.:6U UV POR YS MVOC AO POU VOIP ey TP OY UT Ut 1 || voluntarily dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). 2 If Plaintiff fails to file a response, this Court will recommend to an assigned district 3 || judge that this case be dismissed. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: _ August 5, 2020 [see hey 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28