(PC) Kirchner v. Biter ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTOPHER KIRCHNER, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-0516 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING THE 13 v. ) MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DIRECTING THE ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 14 M. BITER, et al., ) ) (Docs. 42, 53) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Plaintiff seeks to hold the defendants liable for a violation of his due process rights related to 18 disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. (Docs. 19, 22.) Defendants assert 19 that Plaintiff litigated his claim with a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Del Norte County Superior 20 Court, and the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (See generally Doc. 42-1.) Thus, 21 Defendants moved to dismiss the action with prejudice. (Doc. 42.) 22 The assigned magistrate judge took judicial notice of proceedings in Del Norte County Superior 23 Court Case No. HCPB-15-5095, including the petition and order granting the petition. (Doc. 52 at 12.) 24 The magistrate judge found “the instant action concerns the same due process cause of action” 25 addressed by the state court.” (Id. at 13.) Specifically, the magistrate judge observed: “The allegations 26 in this action involve the same primary right asserted by Plaintiff, the same primary duties devolving 27 upon the same defendants, and allege the same harms done by defendants….” (Id.) In addition, the 28 magistrate judge found “the two actions are between the same parties or parties in privity with them,” 1 || because all defendants named in the action now before the Court were also named as defendants in th 2 || state action. (/d. at 14.) The magistrate judge also noted that “Plaintiff received a final judgment on 3 || the merits,” and the state court vacated the rules violation report in issue here. (See id.) The □□□□□□□ 4 || judge found Plaintiffs claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion) and 5 || recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. (/d. at 15.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that an 7 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 53 at 15.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure t 8 || file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. at 15-16, 9 |) citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed, and th 10 || time to do so has passed.! ll According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 13 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated (Doc. 53) are ADOPTED in full. 15 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. 16 3. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 17 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: _March 22, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' The USPS returned the Findings and Recommendations served upon Plaintiff as deliverable. However, Plaintiff was 28 || served at the address he provided (Doc. 52) and service is deemed “fully effective” pursuant to Local Rule 182(f).