(PC) Gaddy v. Pfeiffer ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL J. GADDY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00412-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CAME 13 v. BE DISMISSED BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., 15 (ECF No. 15). Defendants. 16 17 Michael J. Gaddy alleges that prison officials miscalculated his parole eligibility date and 18 improperly denied Gaddy a parole hearing when he was entitled to one. Gaddy asserts that 19 Defendants failed to correctly apply several penal code provisions regarding the start date of 20 consecutive felony terms, failed to properly notify Gaddy of the legal reason for changing his 21 parole hearing date (which is now in 2035), and deprived Gaddy of his opportunity to be heard by 22 failing to hold a parole hearing. Gaddy brings due process claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth 23 Amendments, a deliberate indifference Eighth Amendment claim based on Defendants’ failure to 24 investigate Gaddy’s grievances, and First Amendment claims based on the delay of the parole 25 hearing. 26 Gaddy filed a complaint alleging similar claims in 2018 in the Northern District of 27 California in Gaddy v. Ducart, No. 18-cv-04558-HSG, 2019 WL 78838 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 2, 2019), 28 1 aff’d 802 Fed.Appx. 300 (9th Cir. 2020).1 Those claims were dismissed on January 2, 2019, for 2 failing to state any cognizable claims. Specifically, the district court there found that Gaddy was 3 not eligible for parole until 2032. 4 On July 25, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge in this action issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed based on the doctrine of res judicata. 5 (Doc. 11). Plaintiff responded to the order. (Doc. 14). On December 7, 2022, the magistrate 6 judge recommended that this case be dismissed based on the doctrine of res judicata. (Doc. 15). 7 Further, the magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave 8 to amend. (Id. at 10). 9 On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and 10 Recommendations. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff contends the magistrate judge’s recommendation is 11 “unsupported by the record or operative binding precedent” because res judicata does not bar a 12 second claim that is premised on a continuing wrong. (Id. at 1, 3). Plaintiff also contends that the 13 prior suit was not a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata, (id. at 5), and that 14 the defendants named in this action are not protected by privity (id. at 7). These objections are 15 materially the same issues that Plaintiff raised in response to the order to show cause, which the 16 magistrate judge expressly addressed (and rejected) in the Findings and Recommendations. The 17 magistrate judge was correct that the “continuing wrong” Plaintiff complains of is based on an 18 issue which was litigated and resolved in a prior case. Plaintiff is incorrect in his assertions that 19 (1) the prior suit was not a final judgment on the merits, and that (2) the defendants named in this 20 action are not in privity with the defendants in the prior action. 21 As the magistrate judge explained, the new “continuing wrong” of which Plaintiff 22 complains is based on Plaintiff’s already-adjudicated claim that he has a right to a parole hearing. 23 This claim was resolved with a final judgment on the merits when the Ninth Circuit affirmed that 24 Gaddy failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his parole eligibility date was miscalculated 25 26 1 There, Gaddy alleged due process violations, a deliberate indifference Eighth Amendment claim, and improper application of California Penal Code Sections 3041, 1170.1, and 3046—the same constitutional 27 and penal code provisions that Gaddy implicates in this case. The only new claim in this case is a First Amendment claim, which Gaddy alleges is based on the “continuing” due process and Eighth Amendment 28 violations. 1 | such that he has been improperly denied a hearing. 2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 3 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter—including Plaintiff's objections—the Court 4 | concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 5 | analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 7, 2022 (Doc. 15) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, without leave to amend, based on the doctrine 9 of res judicata. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 11 D IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _June 25, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28