Rocky Mountain Bank -v- Google, Inc.

Filing 499

Rocky Mountain Bank -v- Google, Inc.

Doc. 499

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General 3 JULIE L. GARLAND Senior Assistant Attorney General 4 JENNIFER A. NEILL Supervising Deputy Attorney General 5 ROBERT C. CROSS, State Bar No. 65553 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 6 Post Office Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 7 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 8 Email: [e-mail] 9 Attorneys for Respondent 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 INTRODUCTION On April 4, 2008, the Court issued an order directing the magistrate judge to issue a "report v. JAMES GOMEZ, Respondent. GRIFFIN, ROBERT LEE, Petitioner, 9821038JW OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE Hearing: Time: Location: Judge: August 12, 2008 1:00 p.m. U.S. District Courthouse Hon. Nandor J. Vadas IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

23 and recommendation with respect to whether Respondent complied with the writ" that was 24 granted on June 28, 2006. (Order Referring Motion to Magistrate, filed April 4, 2008, at 2:1325 15.) The Court's order granting the writ stated: 26 27 28 / / / Petitioner's petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ordered to release Petitioner from the SHU immediately. On or before July 5, 2006, Respondents are ordered to file a notice that Petitioner has been released.

Opposition to Motion In Limine

9821038JW

1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 (Order Granting Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed June 28, 2006, at 11.) 2 In the order seeking a report and recommendation, the Court indicated that a report and

3 recommendation is necessary because "the Court does not have a fully developed record of 4 Petitioner's housing status since its June 28, 2006 Order." (Id. at 2:12-13.) This matter is now 5 set for an evidentiary hearing. 6 Griffin seeks a motion in limine "to exclude from the scheduled evidentiary hearing any

7 evidence, witnesses and defenses that Respondents are precluded from presenting under the legal 8 concepts of res judicata, claim preclusion, issue preclusion, collateral estoppel or equivalent 9 common law doctrines." (Notice of Motion and Motion In Limine, filed July 25, 2008, at 1.) 10 The motion should be denied because res judicata does not apply in habeas proceedings.

11 Moreover, the purpose of this hearing is not to relitigate past issues, and Respondent has no 12 intention to do so, but rather for the limited purpose of determining whether Respondent 13 complied with the writ. 14 Griffin was released from the SHU and the notice to that effect was filed with the Court.

15 Indeed, Griffin has not been confined in the PBSP SHU for approximately five years. He, 16 however, has now been returned from federal custody to PBSP and he has recently been 17 validated as an active gang member based upon current information and criteria. At the hearing, 18 Respondent will, to the extent necessary to show that Respondent complied with the writ, show 19 that the circumstances have changed regarding both the conditions at the PBSP SHU and 20 Griffin's custody status, such that his placement in the PBSP SHU would not violate this Court's 21 earlier order.1/ 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 27 1. Should Griffin be attempting to litigate anything beyond Respondent's compliance 28 with the order granting the petition, he must do so by way of a new petition for writ of habeas corpus or, depending on the nature of the claims, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Opposition to Motion In Limine 9821038JW

2

1 2 3 4 5

ARGUMENT I RES JUDICATA IS INAPPLICABLE TO THIS EQUITABLE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING. There is ample authority that the principle of res judicata does not apply to habeas

6 proceedings, which are equitable in nature. See Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 319 (1995) ("This 7 Court has consistently relied on the equitable nature of habeas corpus to preclude application of 8 strict rules of res judicata."); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 537 9 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (rejecting the use of res judicata in a habeas proceeding "because it 10 contravenes the longstanding rule that res judicata has no application in habeas corpus"); 11 Clifton v. Attorney Gen., 997 F.2d 660, 663 n.3 (9th Cir. 1993) ("We recognize that, because 12 'conventional notions of finality of litigation have no place where life or liberty is at stake and 13 infringement of constitutional rights is alleged,' the inapplicability of res judicata to habeas is 14 'inherent in the very role and function of the writ.'" (quoting Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 15 1, 8, (1963)); see also Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 729 n.7 (9th Cir. 2004). 16 To the extent that principles of res judicata might apply here, they are relevant only to the

17 previous circumstances and conditions actually adjudicated. In Collins v. Loisel, 262 U.S. 426, 18 430 (1923), Mr. Justice Brandeis, writing for a unanimous Court in a habeas proceeding 19 instituted by a person being held for extradition, said, 20 21 22 23 a judgment in habeas corpus proceedings discharging a prisoner held for preliminary examination may operate as res judicata. But the judgment is res judicata only that he was at the time illegally in custody, and of the issues of law and fact necessarily involved in that result. Here, after a five year break, Griffin faces a new SHU term for new conduct which will be

24 served under different conditions. Res judicata does not preclude Respondent from introducing 25 evidence to demonstrate compliance with the Court's order granting the writ. Circumstances 26 have changed since the writ was granted and Respondent cannot be precluded from introducing 27 facts and evidence regarding these items, that were not and could not have been litigated before. 28 / / /
Opposition to Motion In Limine 9821038JW

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
CF1993FH0002

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the in limine motion should be denied. Dated: August 7, 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General JULIE L. GARLAND Senior Assistant Attorney General JENNIFER A. NEILL Supervising Deputy Attorney General

/ s / Robert C. Cross ROBERT C. CROSS Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent

28

30519156.wpd

Opposition to Motion In Limine

9821038JW

4