Daniels v. Sherman

Filing 9

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not be Dismissed as Barred by Doctrine of Res Judicata, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/17/16. Show Cause Response Due Within 30 Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS, III,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
STU SHERMAN,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01312-EPG (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED
BY DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
30 DAY DEADLINE

Defendant.

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

Plaintiff Norman Gerald Daniels, III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges he was denied
access to the law library at his institution because Defendant Stu Sherman, the Warden of the
institution, declined to make the accommodations Plaintiff requested to make the computers in
the law library more accessible to visually-impaired inmates. The instant Complaint was filed
on September 6, 2016.
On January 10, 2013, however, Plaintiff filed a separate action that alleged that he was
denied access to the law library at the same institution because defendant Kathleen Allison, the
then-acting Warden of the institution, declined to make similar accommodations with respect to
the computers in the law library. That case, Daniels v. Allison, Case No. 1:12-cv-00545-LJOGSA, was dismissed with prejudice on February 21, 2014 and final judgment was entered
against Plaintiff.

1

1

The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars Plaintiff from bringing the same

2

claims against the same parties a second time in a new lawsuit.1 Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest

3

Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005).

4

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to show cause why this action should

5

not be dismissed, with prejudice, as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Headwaters, Inc.,

6

399 F.3d at 1054-55.

7
8

No later than 30 days after the service date of this order, Plaintiff shall file a written
response explaining why the dismissal of the prior action should not bar the current litigation.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:

October 17, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1

The Court also notes that the statute of limitations which applies to Plaintiff’s federal § 1983 claims is two years.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1; Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014).
Plaintiff may have also been entitled to two additional years under the applicable tolling statute, if he is not serving
a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1.

2