(PC) Mazzei v. Mba ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PAUL MAZZEI, Case No. 1:24-cv-00398-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 12 v. AND 13 MBA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 14 Defendants. DISMISS THIS ACTION AS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA 15 (ECF NO. 1) 16 17 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 18 19 Plaintiff Paul Mazzei is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 20 civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated below, the Court 21 recommends that this case be dismissed as barred by res judicata. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on April 4, 2024. (ECF No. 1). 24 Plaintiff alleges that defendants, a physician’s assistant Sisodia and a registered nurse Mba, 25 were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, resulting in a lung collapse and 26 impaired cardiopulmonary function. (ECF No. 1 at 3, 12). 27 In the complaint, Plaintiff states that he brought a case in state court based on the same 28 allegations and against the same defendants (ECF No. 1 at 12–13), that he lost at summary 1 judgment (id. at 14, 18–21), and then appealed, unsuccessfully (id. at 13, 24–26). In fact, 2 Plaintiff discusses his state lawsuit in great detail, asking the Court to find that the state court 3 judge’s decision to deny him appointment of a medical expert was “clearly erroneous.” (Id. at 4 22, 24). Plaintiff also attaches the subsequent decisions of the California Court of Appeals and 5 the Supreme Court of California, dismissing his appeal as untimely and denying petition for 6 review, respectively. (Id. at 33, 34). 7 As it appeared from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff previously brought a case 8 based on identical allegations against the same defendants, litigated his case, and lost, the Court 9 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as barred by res judicata. 10 (ECF No. 6). On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed his response. (ECF No. 8). 11 II. APPLICABLE LAW 12 Federal courts “give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those 13 judgments would be given in the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged.” 14 Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Thus, 15 this Court will apply California law to determine the preclusive effect of the state court 16 judgment against Plaintiff. Moldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 17 Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass’n v. City of San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362, 364 (9th Cir. 1993). 18 Under California law, res judicata forecloses relitigation if “(1) A claim or issue raised 19 in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior 20 proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the 21 doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.” Pitzen 22 v. Superior Court, 120 Cal. App. 4th 1374, 1381 (2004) (citation omitted); see also Victa v. 23 Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 117, 120 (Ct. App. 1993) (res judicata 24 “foreclose[s] relitigation of a cause of action or issue that was determined in a prior case, 25 involving the same party or one in privity to it, and which ended in a final judgment on the 26 merits”); McKinney v. Cty. of Santa Clara, 168 Cal. Rptr. 89, 92 (Ct. App. 1980) (res judicata 27 “precludes parties and their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally 28 determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.”). 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 Here, Plaintiff alleges that he brought a case in state court based on the same 3 allegations, raising the same claim, and against the same defendants. (ECF No. 1 at 12–13). As 4 to the first element of res judicata, both in this suit and in the state lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged an 5 Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference. (Id. at 3, 12).1 Thus, the claim or issue 6 raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding. 7 As to the second element, Plaintiff lost at summary judgment. (Id. at 14, 18–21). He 8 then appealed, unsuccessfully. (Id. at 13, 24–26). Therefore, the second element of res 9 judicata—final decision on the merits—is satisfied. 10 The third element is also satisfied, because both Sisodia and Mba were defendants in 11 the state lawsuit. (Id. at 12). Thus, the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a 12 party to the prior proceeding. As all three elements are satisfied, this case is barred by the 13 doctrine of res judicata. 14 In his response to the order to show cause (ECF No. 8), Plaintiff argues that this federal 15 lawsuit “is the only means of constitutional redress” because “neither Superior Court nor 16 Appeal Court nor Supreme Court have given him a full and fair opportunity to litigate his 17 federal claims before a fact-finding jury.” (ECF No. 8 at 2). Plaintiff further argues that 18 “Congress intended a federal remedy where state’s decisions are facially unconstitutional and 19 inadequate in disallowing full litigation of a constitutional claim, whereby even if state 20 procedural law could be adequate in theory, is inadequate in practice.” (Id. at 2–3). Plaintiff 21 also argues that “it would be error holding Mazzei’s inability to obtain federal habeas corpus 22 relief on his Eighth Amendment claim.” (Id. at 5).2 Finally, Plaintiff contends that “genuine 23 issues of material fact” precluded summary judgment in state court. (Id. at 5–6). 24 25 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff also argued the Eighth Amendment claim in the Appellant’s Brief during his appeal to the California Court of Appeals. Mazzei v. CDCR, Mba, and Sisodia, et al., 26 2023 WL 8167197, at *2, *18 (No. F086410, Cal. App. 5 Dist. Nov. 1, 2023) (“Appellant Paul Mazzei 27 is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant both state and federal statutes prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment dictated by the Eighth Amendment of the 28 U.S. Constitution.”). 2 Plaintiff does not seek “federal habeas corpus relief” in this lawsuit. 1 Significantly, Plaintiff does not dispute that he litigated the same claims against the 2 same defendants in state court. Instead, he argues that the state court decision granting 3 summary judgment to defendants “was not appropriate and is clear error” (ECF No. 8 at 6) 4 because genuine issues of material fact existed. Plaintiff does not identify what state process 5 was “inadequate.” 6 To the extent Plaintiff attempts to challenge state trial court’s decisions to deny his 7 motion for appointment of a neutral expert (ECF No. 1 at 23) and to grant summary judgment 8 for defendants (ECF No. 1 at 20–24), he is precluded from relitigating those issues by the 9 findings made by state trial court and entry of judgment. (ECF No. 1 at 20–21). This Court is 10 not a state appellate court and has no authority to revisit the substantive findings and 11 determinations made by the state trial court in this proceeding. Love v. Villacana, 73 F.4th 751, 12 754 (9th Cir. 2023) (“A final judgment is afforded preclusive effect even if erroneous.”); Slater 13 v. Blackwood, 543 P.2d 593, 596 (Cal. 1975) (“The consistent application of the traditional 14 principle that final judgments, even erroneous ones . . . are a bar to further proceedings based 15 on the same cause of action is necessary to the well-ordered functioning of the judicial process. 16 It should not be impaired for the benefit of particular plaintiffs, regardless of the sympathy their 17 plight might arouse in an individual case.”). 18 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 It is apparent from the face of the complaint that the claims in this case are barred by res 20 judicata because Plaintiff previously brought a case based on identical allegations against the 21 same defendants, litigated his case, and lost. Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate 22 his claims in state court. 23 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 24 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. 25 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 26 1. This action be dismissed because it is clear from the face of the complaint that 27 this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and 28 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 1 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 2 || judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 3 || thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 4 || written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 5 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 6 || within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 7 || 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 8 || 1991)). 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: _September 18, 2024 [SJ heey — 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28