(PS) Khan v. U.S. Bank National Association ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KHALID N. KHAN, No. 2:22-cv-00954-DAD-AC PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ACTION WITH PREJUDICE and S.A. CHALLENGER, INC., 15 (Doc. No. 3) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Khalid N. Khan proceeds pro se in this civil action. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302. 20 On June 8, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending the dismissal of this action with prejudice because it is barred pursuant to the res 22 judicata doctrine. (Doc. No. 3.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 23 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of 24 service. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 4.) 25 In his objections, plaintiff claims that he filed the instant complaint – a verbatim copy of 26 his previously filed complaint in Khan v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al. (Khan I), No. 27 2:13-cv-02596-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), because “prior findings and recommendations of [the 28 m]agistrate judge were never served to plaintiff” and he was unable to respond to them in time. 1 (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also argues that res judicata does not apply here because the court never 2 reached the merits of his claims in dismissing his complaint filed in Khan I. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 3 requests leave to amend his complaint to present the additional documents that he has attached to 4 his objections. (Id. at 3.) 5 A review of the docket shows that plaintiff was provided a full and fair opportunity to 6 litigate his claims in Khan I. Khan I, No. 2:13-cv-02596-KJM-CKD. Plaintiff filed objections 7 (Doc. No. 38, Khan I) to the findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of his third 8 amended complaint in that action based upon his lack of standing. After the assigned district 9 judge in that case adopted the findings and recommendations and dismissed the action, plaintiff 10 subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of that order (Doc. No. 40, Khan I) which was 11 denied (see Doc. No. 41, Khan I). Additionally, res judicata “bars repetitious suits involving the 12 same cause of action once a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final judgment on the 13 merits.” United States v. Tohono of Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307, 315 (2011) (internal quotation 14 marks omitted). Plaintiff continues to assert the same claims here as he did in Khan I, a case in 15 which final judgment was entered on the merits of the claim, with the court finding that plaintiff 16 lacked standing to bring his claims in federal court. (See Doc. No. 1; Doc. No. 39, Khan I.) In 17 order to have standing to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show that: 18 (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or 19 hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely 20 speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. 21 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000). 22 Plaintiff has not shown that he has new or different claims as to which he has standing to bring. 23 The claims in his complaint in this instant action would result in the same judgment as was 24 entered in Khan I—the very same repetition that the doctrine of res judicata attempts to avoid in 25 preserving judicial resources. Plaintiff’s objections are therefore unpersuasive. 26 In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review 27 of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the 28 ///// 1 | court concludes that the pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 2 || proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 8, 2022 (Doc. No. 3) are 5 adopted in full; 6 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice; and 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ September 5, 2022 Dab A. 2, aol 10 UNITED STATES DISTRIC¥ JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28