Omar Sharrieff Gay v. Anthony Hedgpeth et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 4 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. For these reasons, Petitioners Motion is DENIED. (See Order for Details). (sch)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OMAR SHARIREFF GAY,

12
13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, et al.

15

Respondents.

16

Case No. CV 11-05905 DDP (DTB)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[194 - Docket number 4]

___________________________

17

Presently before the court is Petitioner’s “Motion Seeking

18

Court Order For Preliminary Injunctive Relief Directing Respondents

19

to Vacate and Set Aside the BPH’s July 6, 2010 Decision to Deny

20

Petitioner a Five(5) Years Parole Hearing.”

21

considered the submissions of the parties, the court denies the

22

motion.

23

(Dkt. No. 4.)

Having

On May 18, 1989, Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder.

24

Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of life

25

with the possibility of parole on June 15, 1989.

26

Petitioner was denied parole.

27

deferred for five years, pursuant to “Marsy’s Law,” California

28

Penal Code section 3041.5.

On July 6, 2010,

A further parole hearing was

Marsy’s Law, implemented after the

1

passage of Proposition 9 in 2008, amended section 3041.5 to

2

increase the default period between parole hearings.

3

contends that the imposition of a five-year default period between

4

parole hearings is an unconstitutional, ex post facto increase in

5

his punishment.

6

Petitioner

(Mot. at 2-3).

The plaintiffs in Gilman v. Davis, No. Civ. S-05-830 LKK (E.D.

7

Cal.) raised class claims identical to Petitioner’s ex post facto

8

claim here.

9

state prisoners who have been sentenced to a life term with

The Gilman court defined a class of “all California

10

possibility of parole for an offense that occurred before November

11

4, 2008.”

12

340) at 2, No. Civ. S-05-830 LKK (E.D. Cal. April 22, 2011).

13

Gilman court denied a class-wide motion for preliminary injunction

14

brought on the same grounds as those raised by Petitioner here.

15

Gilman, No. Civ. S-05-830 LKK, Dkt. No. 409.

16

Order Amending Definitions of Certified Class (Dkt. No.
The

The principle of res judicata “bars litigation in a subsequent

17

action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in

18

the prior action.”

19

244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation and citation

20

omitted).

21

claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) identity or

22

privity between parties.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

Here,

23

it appears that Petitioner is a member of the Gilman class.

Res

24

judicata therefore bars the instant motion for a preliminary

25

injunction.

26

1999) (citing Cooper v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U.S.

27

867, 874 (1984) (“[A] judgment in a properly entertained class

Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.,

The doctrine applies when there is “(1) an identity of

See Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 179 F.3d 641, 649 (9th Cir.

28
2

1

action is binding on class members in any subsequent

2

litigation.”)).

3

For these reasons, Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: June 12, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3