-JFM (PC) Grant v. Schwarzenegger et al, No. 2:2007cv02700 - Document 52 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2011 ORDERING the 48 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED as amended by this order; Defendants' 43 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Andrews, P) Modified docket text on 9/30/2011 (Waggoner, D).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JFM (PC) Grant v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY D. GRANT, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. 2:07-CV-2700 KJM JFM (PC) vs. GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN1, et al., Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, brings this civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On June 29, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 20 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 21 within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 23 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, 24 25 1 26 The current Governor is substituted for the previously-named prior Governor. FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 2 analysis, with the sole exception of the legal analysis of the issue of collateral estoppel. That 3 portion of the findings and recommendations, appearing at page 12, line 12 to page 13, line 18, is 4 modified as follows: 5 A federal court looks to state law when determining the preclusive effect of a 6 prior state court adjudication. Jones v. Bates, 127 F.3d 839, 848 (9th Cir. 1997). Under 7 California law, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating an issue 8 previously decided if: (1) the issue is identical to that decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue 9 was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the issue was necessarily decided in the prior 10 proceeding; (4) the decision was final and on the merits; and (5) preclusion is sought against a 11 person who was a party or in privity with a party in the prior proceeding. Lucido v. Superior Ct., 12 51 Cal. 3d 335, 341 (1990). An issue is identical when “‘identical factual allegations’ are at 13 stake in the two proceedings, not whether the ultimate issues or dispositions are the same.” Id. at 14 342. When evaluating each criteria, “courts look carefully at the entire record from the prior 15 proceeding, including the pleadings, the evidence, the jury instructions, and any special jury 16 findings or verdicts.” Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 46 Cal. 4th 501, 511 (2009). 17 Defendant argues the claim is precluded because their obligation to pay for 18 plaintiff’s surgery was actually and necessarily decided in the Santa Cruz Superior Court. This 19 argument, however, misstates plaintiff’s claim. In the prior action, plaintiff was taking the Depo 20 Provera (DP) medication at the time he filed his lawsuit and was requesting to proceed with a 21 perceived permanent solution by having the orchiectomy paid for by the county. The superior 22 court evaluated the “medical necessity” of the procedure and determined that the plaintiff could 23 have the orchiectomy, but “at no cost to the County of Santa Cruz or the State of California.” 24 After the superior court decision, plaintiff was taken off of DP; there is a dispute over whether or 25 not he was promised some other chemical alternative soon thereafter. 26 ///// 2 1 Whether or not the issue of the County’s responsibility for the costs to provide the 2 surgery under these circumstances is the same as the prior action is irrelevant. The analysis does 3 not turn on whether the “ultimate issues . . . are the same.” Lucido, 51 Cal. 3d at 341. Instead, 4 the court must find “identical factual allegations” are at play. Id. Requesting on the one hand 5 that the County pay for an elective surgery while taking the DP in the prior action and now, on 6 the other, claiming the surgery was necessary because the plaintiff was denied the drug are not 7 “identical factual allegations.” Therefore the issue is not precluded. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. 10 amended by this Order; 11 12 13 The findings and recommendations filed June 29, 2011, are adopted as 2. Defendants’ February 18, 2011 motion for summary judgment is denied; 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to refer this action back to the and 14 magistrate judge for further proceedings. 15 DATED: September 30, 2011. 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
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.
