Rico v. Gibson et al
Filing
15
ORDER DISMISSING Action, With Prejudice, as Barred By Claim Preclusion, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/28/15: The Clerk's Office SHALL enter judgment. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MIGUEL RICO,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
CONNIE GIBSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00585-BAM (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, AS BARRED BY CLAIM
PRECLUSION
Procedural History
Plaintiff Miguel Rico (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on April 23, 2014.
Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 5.)
On March 23, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
and issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed based on
claim preclusion. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a response on May 14, 2015. (ECF No. 15.)
II.
Discussion
A.
Summary of Claim
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in the Security Housing Unit at Corcoran State Prison,
is challenging his validation as an associate of the Mexican Mafia (EME) prison gang. Plaintiff
28
1
1
asserts that his validation as an EME associate is not supported by “some evidence.” Plaintiff further
2
asserts that Defendants violated his due process rights.
According to exhibits attached to his complaint, Plaintiff also challenged his validation as an
3
4
associate of the EME by filing a state habeas corpus action in Lassen County Superior Court. The
5
Superior Court denied the petition on November 7, 2012. Plaintiff appealed the denial to the Court of
6
Appeal in and for the Third Appellate District. The appeal also was denied. Plaintiff subsequently
7
appealed to the California Supreme Court, which denied his petition for habeas corpus on June 12,
8
2013.
9
10
11
B.
Discussion
1.
Prior Proceedings
In his habeas proceedings, Plaintiff challenged his validation as an associate of the Mexican
12
Mafia prison gang (EME). The habeas court considered whether there was evidence or an insufficient
13
number of source items to support the administrative determination. The court found no defect of due
14
process and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 7, 2012. (Ex. O to Complaint.)
15
16
17
18
19
The California Court of Appeal denied Plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on March
28, 2013. (Ex. P to Complaint.)
The California Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 12, 2013.
(Ex. Q to Complaint.)
2.
Claim Preclusion
20
Claim preclusion bars litigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior action.
21
Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). Federal courts
22
are required to give state court judgments the preclusive effects they would be given by another court
23
of that state. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Migra v. Warren City Sch.
24
Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 84, 104 S.Ct. 892 (1984) and Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951
25
(9th Cir. 2004)) (quotation marks omitted).
26
Under California law, a final judgment of a state court precludes further proceedings if they are
27
based on the same cause of action. Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1268 (citing Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 951)
28
(quotation marks omitted). California courts employ the primary rights theory to determine what
2
1
constitutes the same cause of action for claim preclusion purposes, and under this theory, a cause of
2
action is (1) a primary right possessed by the plaintiff, (2) a corresponding primary duty devolving
3
upon the defendant, and (3) a harm done by the defendant which consists in a breach of such primary
4
right and duty. Id. (citing City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading & Transp., Inc., 353 F.3d 758, 762 (9th
5
Cir. 2003)) (quotation marks omitted). If two actions involve the same injury to the plaintiff and the
6
same wrong by the defendant, then the same primary right is at stake even if in the second suit the
7
plaintiff pleads different theories of recovery, seeks different forms of relief and/or adds new facts
8
supporting recovery. Id. (citing Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 147 Cal.App.3d 1170, 1174, 197 Cal.Rptr.
9
612 (1983)) (quotation marks omitted).
10
3.
Findings
11
Here, there is no doubt that Plaintiff is attempting to litigate in this action what he already
12
litigated and lost in the Lassen County Superior Court. In his habeas action, Plaintiff challenged his
13
validation as an associate of the EME and the Superior Court considered whether his due process
14
rights were violated. Likewise, in this section 1983 action, Plaintiff challenges his validation as an
15
associate of the EME and asserts due process violations. The Court therefore finds that this action
16
involves the same primary rights as his state habeas action as the injury and wrong in both actions are
17
identical; that is, Plaintiff claims he was injured by his validation as an EME associate and he was
18
denied due process in the validation proceedings.
Insofar as Plaintiff argues his action is not barred by claim preclusion because the prior habeas
19
20
action did not address his freedom of association or Equal Protection claims and he is seeking different
21
forms of relief, his argument lacks merit. As noted above, because the actions involved the same
22
injury to Plaintiff and the same wrong, then the same primary right is at stake even if Plaintiff now
23
pleads different theories of recovery, seeks different forms of relief or adds new facts supporting
24
recovery in this action. Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1268. Given the nature of the deficiency at issue, leave
25
to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
III.
2
For the reasons stated, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, as barred by claim
3
Conclusion and Order
preclusion, and the Clerk’s Office SHALL enter judgment.
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 28, 2015
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?