L M Daniels II v. Jonathon Renshaw

Filing 7

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE as to Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed as Barred by Res Judicata and For Rule 11(b)(3) Violation, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/19/2011. Show Cause Response Due by 11/23/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

L. M. DANIELS, II,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO: 1:11-cv-1544-GBC (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY
THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
AS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA AND FOR
RULE 11(b)(3) VIOLATION

v.
JONATHON RENSHAW,

(Doc. 1)
13

Defendants
/

14
15

I.

Procedural Background

16

L. M. Daniels, II (“Plaintiff’) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

17

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on September 6, 2011.

18

(Doc. 1). Upon review of the complaint, it appears to the Court that this action is substantively

19

identical to a separate action that Plaintiff filed on April 12, 2010, Daniels v. Piearcy, et al.,

20

1:10-cv-00630-JLT, which was dismissed with prejudice on February 24, 2011, for failure to state

21

a claim. Additionally, the Court observes that Plaintiff’s complaint indicating that he has no history

22

of prior litigation, contradicts court records demonstrating that he has filed actions prior to this one.

23

II.

Res Judicata

24

The doctrine of res judicata bars the re-litigation of claims previously decided on their

25

merits. Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005). “The elements

26

necessary to establish res judicata are: ‘(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits,

27

and (3) privity between parties.’” Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1052 (quoting Tahoe-Sierra Pres.

28

Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.2d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[I]f a court
1

1

is on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented, the court may dismiss the action sua

2

sponte, even though the defense has not been raised,” Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 416

3

(2000), provided that the parties have an opportunity to be heard prior to dismissal, Headwaters,

4

Inc., 399 F.3d at 1055.

5

In Plaintiff’s complaint he alleges that his parole officer, Defendant Jonathan Renshaw, has

6

“intentionally perjured documents to the board of prison hearings, claiming that [Plaintiff] raped and

7

sodomized a 14 year old girl.” (Doc. 1 at 5). Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of Defendant

8

Renshaw has made it difficult for Plaintiff to have a fair hearing, that Defendant Renshaw has

9

repeatedly lied to Plaintiff concerning his conditions and had Plaintiff unlawfully arrested numerous

10

times. (Doc. 1 at 5). Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant Renshaw has violated Plaintiff’s civil

11

rights by fraudulently labeling Plaintiff a child molester and caused Plaintiff to be classified as a

12

“special needs” prisoner. (Doc. 1 at 5). Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant also fraudulently

13

charged Plaintiff with assaulting a peace officer in the Fresno County Jail on July 24, 2011. (Doc.

14

1 at 5).

15

As relief Plaintiff seeks criminal charges or civil remedy against Defendant Renshaw to

16

“ensure that his unprofessional . . . racially motivated behavior stops.” (Doc. 1 at 6). Plaintiff seeks

17

for Defendant Renshaw to no longer serve as his parole agent, that his supervisors be made aware

18

of Defendant Renshaw’s actions, and that Defendant Renshaw be demoted or terminated from his

19

position.

20

Same as this case, Daniels v. Piearcy, et al., 1:10-cv-00630, involved the falsification of

21

reports by several defendants including Jonathan Renshaw which resulted in Plaintiff having parole

22

terms imposed consistent with a conviction for child molestation. Daniels v. Piearcy, et al.,

23

1:10-cv-00630 (Doc. 9 at 3). As in this case, Plaintiff argued in Daniels v. Piearcy, that the false

24

report resulted in an incorrect prison housing classification and that he is designated “special needs”

25

as a result of the child molester label. Daniels v. Piearcy, et al., 1:10-cv-00630 (Doc. 9 at 3).

26

In its February 24, 2011, dismissal order, the court in Daniels v. Piearcy, et al., found that

27

Plaintiff failed to state a claim based on the same facts asserted in this instant case. Daniels v.

28

Piearcy, et al., 1:10-cv-00630 (Doc. 9 at 3-4). Although Plaintiff changed the legal remedy he seeks
2

1

for Defendant Renshaw’s alleged false child molestation reports, Plaintiff cannot now bring an action

2

from the same conduct based on a different legal remedy. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

3

1230 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming trial court’s res judicata finding where Plaintiff indicated no reason

4

why he could not have raised the new legal theory in his prior actions). Additionally, the court in

5

Daniels v. Piearcy, found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim regarding his prison classification.

6

Daniels v. Piearcy, et al., 1:10-cv-00630 (Doc. 9 at 4).

7

The Court concludes the case currently before this court stems from the claims which were

8

previously litigated against Defendant Renshaw in Daniels v. Piearcy, et al., 1:10-cv-00630. A

9

prisoner’s claims are considered frivolous if it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated

10

claims.” See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bailey v.

11

Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1988)). Therefore, the Court finds that this current case,

12

Daniels v. Renshaw, 1:11-cv-01544-GBC, is bared by res judicata and was merely duplicative of

13

the previously dismissed suit for failure to state a claim (Daniels v. Piearcy, et al., 1:10-cv-00630).

14

Thus, this action is also frivolous. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995).

15

III. Rule 11(b)

16
17

It appears to the Court that Plaintiff falsely states in his complaint that he has no previous or
pending lawsuits in addition to this case. Rule 11(b) (3) states:

18

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper--whether by

19

signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an . . . unrepresented party certifies

20

that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an

21

inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

22

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so

23

identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for

24

further investigation or discovery . . . .

25
26

Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3).
Contrary to Plaintiff’s representation in his complaint, Plaintiff has filed three other civil

27
28
3

1

suits.1 Plaintiff’s Failure to provide information about previous lawsuits interferes with the court's

2

efforts to conserve judicial resources by preventing the proliferation of vexatious litigation.

3

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal

4

sanction warranted when deliberate deception undermines integrity of judicial proceedings and

5

threatens to interfere with rightful decision of case); Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1389 (9th

6

Cir.1994) (per curiam) (pro se, in forma pauperis prisoner's misrepresentation about previous

7

lawsuits may violate Rule 11). It is apparent from Plaintiff’s history of repeatedly stating in his

8

various actions that he has not filed any other litigation that his misrepresentation of prior cases filed

9

in his complaint is repeated, willful and in bad faith. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage

10

Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995). As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the

11

Court finds that monetary sanctions would be inappropriate and that instead the appropriate sanction

12

for violating Rule 11(b)(3) is to dismiss the case without prejudice. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v.

13

Natural Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995); Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386,

14

1389 (9th Cir.1994).

15

IV.

Conclusion and Order

16

Because it appears to the Court that the claims in Daniels v. Piearcy, et al., involve the same

17

transactional nucleus of facts and the same defendant as in this instant action, the Court HEREBY

18

ORDERS:
1.

19

Plaintiff SHALL SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days of the date of service of

20

this order why the this action should not be dismissed on grounds of res judicata

21

based on Plaintiff’s prior case of Daniels v. Piearcy, et al., 1:10-cv-00630; and

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
1

28

Daniels v. Piearcy, et al., 1:10-cv-00630-JLT; Daniels v. Watson, 1:09-cv-02033-MJS; and Daniels v.
Lopez, et al., 1:09-cv-01156-OW W -SMS.

4

2.

1

and Plaintiff SHALL SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days of the date of service

2

of this order why the false statement of prior litigation in Plaintiff’s complaint

3

does not violate Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and why

4

this action should not be dismissed without prejudice as the appropriate sanction

5

for violating Rule 11(b)(3).

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:
0jh02o

9

October 19, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5