Kirchner v. Biter et al

Filing 54

ORDER ADOPTING in Full 53 the Findings and Recommendations, Granting the 42 Motion to Dismiss, and Directing the Clerk of Court to Close the Case, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/22/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRISTOPHER KIRCHNER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. BITER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-0516 JLT BAM
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING THE
MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DIRECTING THE
CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE
(Docs. 42, 53)

16
17

Plaintiff seeks to hold the defendants liable for a violation of his due process rights related to

18

disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. (Docs. 19, 22.) Defendants assert

19

that Plaintiff litigated his claim with a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Del Norte County Superior

20

Court, and the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (See generally Doc. 42-1.) Thus,

21

Defendants moved to dismiss the action with prejudice. (Doc. 42.)

22

The assigned magistrate judge took judicial notice of proceedings in Del Norte County Superior

23

Court Case No. HCPB-15-5095, including the petition and order granting the petition. (Doc. 52 at 12.)

24

The magistrate judge found “the instant action concerns the same due process cause of action”

25

addressed by the state court.” (Id. at 13.) Specifically, the magistrate judge observed: “The allegations

26

in this action involve the same primary right asserted by Plaintiff, the same primary duties devolving

27

upon the same defendants, and allege the same harms done by defendants….” (Id.) In addition, the

28

magistrate judge found “the two actions are between the same parties or parties in privity with them,”
1

1

because all defendants named in the action now before the Court were also named as defendants in the

2

state action. (Id. at 14.) The magistrate judge also noted that “Plaintiff received a final judgment on

3

the merits,” and the state court vacated the rules violation report in issue here. (See id.) The magistrate

4

judge found Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion) and

5

recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. (Id. at 15.)

6

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that any

7

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 53 at 15.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure to

8

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 15-16,

9

citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed, and the

10

time to do so has passed.1

11

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

12

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are

13

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

14

1.

The Findings and Recommendations dated (Doc. 53) are ADOPTED in full.

15

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 42) is GRANTED.

16

3.

The action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

17

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

March 22, 2024

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The USPS returned the Findings and Recommendations served upon Plaintiff as deliverable. However, Plaintiff was
served at the address he provided (Doc. 52) and service is deemed “fully effective” pursuant to Local Rule 182(f).

2