Cranford v. O' Brian

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION and ORDER DENYING 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Combine Cases signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/14/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
KATHLEEN O’BRIAN,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00411-DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMBINE CASES
(Document 10)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 16, 2015.
On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to combine this action with 1:14-cv-00221-GSA.
Plaintiff states that the cases are exactly the same in every way.
Claim preclusion bars litigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior

22

action, Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted), and it

23

“requires three things: (1) identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the same

24

parties, or privity between parties,” Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012)

25

(citing Cell Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lash Grp., Inc., 586 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2010)).

26

In deciding whether there is an identify of claims, courts are to apply four criteria: “‘(1)

27

whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by

28

prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two
1

1

actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two

2

suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.’” Harris, 682 F.3d at 1132 (quoting United

3

States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1150 (9th Cir. 2011)). “The

4

fourth criterion - the same transactional nucleus of facts - is the most important.” Liquidators of

5

European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d at 1151.

6

Upon review of 1:14-cv-00221-GSA, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim on

7

April 29, 2015, the Court finds that the actions involve the same Defendant and the same set of facts.

8

Both actions complained of Defendant O’Brian’s alleged harassment in 2014. Accordingly, Plaintiff

9

is precluded from bringing this action and it is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

10

Plaintiff’s motion to combine the actions is DENIED.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

May 14, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2