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)
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?