Stanley, Jr. v. Hollandberry ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RODRIC PETRECE STANLEY, JR., Case No. 22-cv-09129-JD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 15 10 ELIZABETH HOLLANDBERRY, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 Rodric Stanley, a detainee, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 14 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). 15 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that his claims are barred by res judicata, and the 16 allegations fail to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff filed an opposition and defendants filed a 17 reply.1 The complaint is dismissed. 18 Background 19 Amended Complaint 20 Plaintiff states that while in county jail in September and October 2022, defendant Dr. 21 Hollandberry denied him a cane, egg crates and a medical mattress despite an injured knee, back 22 and shoulder.2 Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 10 at 1-2, 7-11. Plaintiff slept on a thin mattress 23 and walked long distances without a cane. Id. at 1-3. Defendant also declined to increase 24 plaintiff’s pain medication. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied a disability cell and 25 shower and was unable to bathe as a result. Id. at 4. 26 1 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file a supplemental opposition concerning res judicata 27 and the other arguments in the motion to dismiss, but did not address these issues. Dkt. Nos. 22, 1 Plaintiff says that defendant Sergeant Kellogg retaliated against plaintiff for filing 2 grievances by keeping him in solitary confinement in the D Module at the jail and taking his 3 medical equipment. Id. at 3. Plaintiff also says defendant Kellogg’s actions violated the ADA and 4 denied him proper medical treatment. Id. Plaintiff commenced this federal action on December 5 28, 2022. Dkt. No. 1. The Court ordered service on claims of denial of medical care and violation 6 of the ADA by both defendants and retaliation by Kellogg. Dkt. No. 11. 7 State Case 8 In September 2022, plaintiff filed a motion in his criminal case about the conditions in the 9 county jail, and in October 2022, filed a state habeas petition about the conditions. Request for 10 Judicial Notice (“RJD”), Exs. A-C.3 The Superior Court of Contra Costa County ordered 11 defendants to respond to plaintiff’s allegations in both filings. Id. at Ex. D at 1. Plaintiff alleged 12 that he had been unlawfully housed in D Module at the jail and that that he was housed in 13 conditions unfit for his medical needs and that he was deprived of medically prescribed supplies. 14 Id. 15 Defendants filed a response describing plaintiff’s medical care and housing conditions and 16 included declarations and exhibits. RJD, Exs. E-G. In a reasoned opinion the superior court 17 denied the habeas petition on the merits. Id., Ex. I. The superior court found that plaintiff was not 18 housed in D Module for any improper reason and that defendant Kellogg did not retaliate against 19 him. Id. at 6-7 of 10. The superior court also described plaintiff’s medical care, pain medication 20 and medical appliances and held that defendants had not violated the law. Id. at 8 of 10. The 21 superior court found that plaintiff had been constantly evaluated by medical staff including 25 22 consultations from September 2022 to February 2023 and eight direct evaluations by medical 23 staff. Id. He also received several MRI scans, was being provided pain medication and the 24 medical appliances were properly discontinued. Id. 25 26 27 1 Legal Standard 2 Under the Full Faith and Credit Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts must give the 3 same preclusive effect to state court judgments, including “reasoned” habeas judgments, as the 4 rendering state court would. Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 5 2014) (citing Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984)). In California, 6 “[c]laim preclusion arises if a second suit involves: (1) the same cause of action (2) between the 7 same parties [or parties in privity with them] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first 8 suit.” DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal. 4th 813, 825 (2015) (citing Mycogen Corp. v. 9 Monsanto Co., 28 Cal. 4th 888 (2002)). 10 California courts will hold that two suits involve the same cause of action when they 11 involve the same “primary right.” Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009). Under 12 this theory “a ‘cause of action’ is comprised of a ‘primary right’ of the plaintiff, a corresponding 13 ‘primary duty’ of the defendant, and a wrongful act by the defendant constituting a breach of that 14 duty.” Mycogen, 28 Cal. 4th at 904. “The most salient characteristic of a primary right is that it is 15 indivisible: the violation of a single primary right gives rise to but a single cause of action.” Id. 16 Thus, in California, “if two actions involve the same injury to the plaintiff and the same wrong by 17 the defendant then the same primary right is at stake even if in the second suit the plaintiff pleads 18 different theories of recovery, seeks different forms of relief and/or adds new facts supporting 19 recovery.” San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps. Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 20 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 147 Cal. App. 3d 1170 (1983)). “The critical 21 focus of primary rights analysis is the harm suffered.” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1268. 22 Discussion 23 As currently presented in the complaint, plaintiff seeks to relitigate the same primary rights 24 violations rejected by the state court. The injuries and deprivations are the same, the defendants 25 are the same, and the time period is the same. Dr. Hollandberry, Sergeant Kellogg and Contra 26 Costa County Sheriff Livingston are the defendants in this federal action, although plaintiff 27 presents no specific allegations against Sheriff Livingston. Plaintiff identified numerous 1 Sergeant Kellogg (RJD, Ex. A at 10. Ex. H at 18-19) and made general allegations about the 2 management of the jail (RJD, Ex. A at 1). Plaintiff also included various exhibits identifying Dr. 3 Hollandberry and Kellogg. RJD, Ex. H at 68-71, 75. This establishes that both cases involve the 4 same parties. See San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n, 568 F.3d at 734. To the extent that Sheriff 5 Livingston was not specifically identified in the first case, privity exists. “[P]rivity requires the 6 sharing of ‘an identity or community of interest,’ with “adequate representation’ of that interest in 7 the first suit, and circumstances such that the nonparty ‘should reasonably have expected to be 8 bound’ by the first suit.” DKN Holdings LLC, 61 Cal. 4th at 826 (citation omitted). As sheriff of 9 the county and responsible for the jail, he is bound by the first suit. 10 Res judicata bars plaintiff’s claims in this action. This federal case involves the same 11 cause of action between the same parties as the state case which concluded with a final judgment 12 on the merits. While plaintiff did not bring an ADA claim in the state case, the ADA claim 13 involves the same allegations and facts from the state case. The ADA claim is barred because the 14 same primary right was at stake even though plaintiff now pleads a different theory of recovery. 15 See San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n at 734. 16 Unserved defendant 17 The United States Marshall served the other defendants and Dr. Hollandberry at the Contra 18 Costa County Administration building. Dkt. No. 14. County counsel appeared for Kellogg and 19 Livingston, but it is not clear from the record if Dr. Hollandberry ever received service. Yet, a 20 motion to dismiss may be granted by the Court sua sponte in favor of a nonappearing party on the basis of facts presented by other defendants who have appeared. See Silverton v. Dep’t of 21 Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding district court on its own motion may grant 22 motion to dismiss as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in a 23 position similar to that of moving defendants); Fazio v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., 713 F. 24 App’x. 671, 672 (9th Cir. 2018) (same) (unpublished). The claims against Dr. Hollandberry are 25 barred and this case is dismissed in its entirety. 26 27 1 Conclusion 2 Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) is granted and all defendants are dismissed 3 from this action.* The Clerk is requested to close this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: February 2, 2024 6 7 JAMES TO 8 United Stgfes District Judge 9 10 11 a 12 13 14 © 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 * Because the claims are barred, the Court will not address defendants’ arguments that the allegations fail to state a claim for relief.