Walker v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 6/9/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JEFFREY E. WALKER, Case No. 15-cv-05820-HSG Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is 14 incarcerated at San Francisco County Jail on a civil commitment hold pending a probable cause 15 hearing pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600, 16 et seq. (“SVPA”)). Docket No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 3 and 5. For the reasons set forth below, the 17 instant action is DISMISSED as duplicative of Plaintiff’s earlier-filed action, Walker v. Krol, Case 18 No. 15-05819 HSG (PR) (“Walker I”). 19 DISCUSSION 20 In assessing whether the instant action is duplicative of Walker I, the Court examines 21 whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties to the action, are the same by 22 applying the transaction test, which has been developed in the context of claim preclusion. See 23 Adams v. Cal. Dept. of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) overruled on other 24 grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008) (borrowing claim preclusion test to 25 determine whether a suit is duplicative). 26 27 28 “Whether two events are part of the same transaction or series depends on whether they are related to the same set of facts and whether they could conveniently be tried together.” Western Sys., Inc. v. Ulloa, 958 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24(1) (1982)). In applying the transaction test, we examine four criteria: 1 2 3 (1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 1982). “The last of these criteria is the most important.” Id. at 1202. 4 5 6 Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. In the current action, Plaintiff names as defendants John and Jane Doe, identified as the 7 city and county overseeing the San Francisco County Jail; Matthew Freeman, identified as the 8 chief deputy of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department; Captain Fisher, identified as the San 9 Francisco County Jail facility commander; facility lieutenant Krol; and facility lieutenant De Guzman. Compl. at 4. He alleges that these defendants are unjustly disciplining and punishing 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 him in violation of his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and specifically 12 references the following incidents: an issuance of a rules violation by Sgt. Groody on June 10, 13 2015; an issuance of a rules violation from Deputy Wang on October 7, 2015; Lt. Krol finding 14 Plaintiff guilty of the October 7, 2015 rules violation in retaliation for Plaintiff’s attempts to file 15 criminal charges and complaints; an issuance of a rules violation by Office Saelee on November 16 13, 2015; Lt. Krol finding Plaintiff guilty of the November 13, 2015 rules violation; an issuance of 17 a rules violation by Deputy Saelee on November 15, 2015; Lt.’s Krol finding Plaintiff guilty of the 18 November 15, 2015 rules violation; Capt. Fisher changing Plaintiff’s housing assignment to 19 housing for criminal detainees; and the denial of various privileges, such as canteen, contact visits, 20 and phone usage. Id. at 6–10. Plaintiff’s allegations, liberally construed, state a cognizable claim 21 that his conditions of confinement violate his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth 22 Amendment. Youngberg v. Romero, 457 U.S. 307, 315–16 (1982) (under the Due Process Clause 23 of the Fourteenth Amendment, civilly-committed persons retain substantive liberty interests, 24 which include at least the right to basic necessities such as adequate food, shelter, clothing and 25 medical care; safe conditions of confinement; and freedom from unnecessary bodily restraint); see 26 also id. at 321–22 (“Persons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more 27 considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of 28 confinement are designed to punish.”). 2 1 Similarly, in Walker I, Plaintiff also alleged that his conditions of confinement at San 2 Francisco County Jail are unconstitutional because of his status as a civil detainee, referencing the 3 same incidents enumerated above. Compare Comp. at 6–10 to Complaint at 10–25, Walker I 4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015) (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s allegations in Walker I also, when liberally 5 construed, state a cognizable claim that his conditions of confinement violate his constitutional 6 rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. 7 It is clear that the claims in the instant complaint arise out of the same transactional 8 nucleus of facts asserted in Walker I and that any rights established by a judgment in Walker I 9 would be destroyed or impaired by a judgment in the present action. It is also clear that substantially the same evidence would be presented in both actions. Thus, under the Costantini 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 factors, the Court concludes that the two suits involve the same cause of action. 12 Moreover, the defendants in the two actions differ only slightly and represent the same 13 interests. See Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] suit is 14 duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two 15 actions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 16 (1894) (in determining claim preclusion “[t] here must be the same parties, or, at least, such as 17 represent the same interests; there must be the same rights asserted and the same relief prayed for; 18 the relief must be founded upon the same facts, and the . . . essential basis, of the relief sought 19 must be the same.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In Walker I, Plaintiff named numerous 20 defendants, all of whom are employees of San Francisco County Jail, including two of the 21 defendants named in the instant action (Capt. Fisher and Lt. Krol). The City and County of San 22 Francisco is named as a defendant in both actions. Neither Capt. Freeman nor Lt. De Guzman, 23 both of whom are named defendants in the instant action, are named as defendants in Walker I. 24 However, in the instant action, Plaintiff has alleged Capt. Freeman and Lt. De Guzman are liable 25 because they reviewed his grievances regarding the above incidents. In other words, Plaintiff 26 seeks to hold Capt. Freeman and Lt. De Guzman liable for approving the actions of the 27 subordinates named in Walker I and the instant action. Therefore, the Court concludes that the 28 parties do not significantly differ between the two actions. 3 1 Because the causes of action and relief sought are the same in both Walker I and the instant 2 action, and because the parties do not differ significantly between the two actions, the Court 3 concludes that the instant action is duplicative of Walker I. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Accordingly, the instant action is DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative. The 6 7 8 9 10 Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. No filing fee is due. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6/9/2016 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 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?