Furnace v. Giurbino, No. 13-17620 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, alleges that defendants wrongfully classified him as a gang member in retaliation for filing a section 1983 suit against defendants' colleagues. Plaintiff was denied habeas relief because California courts rejected his claims on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to support the gang validation. Plaintiff then filed the present action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, based on violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court dismissed his suit on claim preclusion grounds. The court concluded that California claim preclusion law governs whether, in light of his earlier state habeas petition, plaintiff's section 1983 claims may be brought in federal court. The court held that the same primary right—defendant's right to be free from unlawful gang validation and placement in the SHU—was at issue in both suits. Because plaintiff's suit involves the same cause of action between the same parties after a final judgment on the merits of the first suit, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. Finally, the court declined defendants' request to assess a strike against defendant under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, on preclusion grounds, of a California state prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging that prison officials wrongfully classified him as a gang member in retaliation for filing a previous § 1983 suit against the defendants’ colleagues. Prior to filing this § 1983 suit, the prisoner filed a habeas petition in California state court, alleging that his gang classification and placement in secured housing violated his federal constitutional rights, which was denied. The panel held that California claim preclusion law governed whether, in light of his earlier state habeas petition, the prisoner’s § 1983 claims could be brought in federal court. The panel rejected the prisoner’s claim that the “primary rights” that were allegedly violated in his § 1983 suit were distinct from the primary right he sought to vindicate in his habeas action in California state court. The panel concluded that the same primary right – the prisoner’s right to be free from unlawful gang validation and placement in the segregated housing unit – was at issue in both suits. The panel also rejected the prisoner’s argument that the identity of the parties was different between this § 1983 action and his prior habeas action. FURNACE V. GIURBINO 3 The panel declined the prison officials’ request to assess a strike, based on the district court’s dismissal of this case, against the prisoner under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.