Rodriguez v. Koenig et al, No. 4:2019cv01273 - Document 19 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LABAHN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rodriguez v. Koenig et al Doc. 19 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 CESAR A. RODRIGUEZ, 4 Case No. 19-cv-01273-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LABAHN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 5 v. 6 PETE LABAHN, 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Cesar A. Rodriguez, a former state prisoner who was previously incarcerated at United States District Court Northern District of California 11 the Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), brings the instant pro se civil rights action, pursuant to 12 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations stemming from when he was denied parole at 13 his seventh subsequent parole consideration hearing before the California Board of Parole 14 Hearings (“BPH” or “Board”) on June 13, 2017. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 15 In an Order dated October 11, 2019, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint stated 16 cognizable due process claim against BPH Commissioner Pete Labahn and BPH Deputy 17 18 19 Commissioner James Martin for “‘ignor[ing] their established procedures and statutes’ as required by state law, thereby violating [Plaintiff’s] rights to due process by ‘depriving him of an actual length of incarceration that matches his culpability, reformation, and offense . . . .’” Dkt. 9 at 2 20 (citing Dkt. 1 at 3). The Court dismissed all claims against Defendant CTF Warden Craig Koenig 21 because Plaintiff did not allege that this Defendant actually or proximately caused the deprivation 22 of any federally protected right and also because no respondeat superior liability exists under 23 Section 1983. Id. (citing Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Taylor v. List, 880 24 25 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)). Finally, the Doe Defendants Plaintiff identified as “‘Doe’s’ Board members and California courts” were dismissed from this action without prejudice. Id. 26 (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Plaintiff was advised that should 27 he learn these Doe Defendants’ identities through discovery, he may move to file an amended 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 complaint to add them as named defendants. Id. at 3 (citing Brass v. County of Los Angeles, 328 2 F.3d 1192, 1195-98 (9th Cir. 2003). To date, Plaintiff has not done so. In an Order dated January 3, 2020, the Court informed Plaintiff that service had been 3 4 ineffective on Defendant Martin and directed Plaintiff to provide the Court with the current 5 address of this Defendant within twenty-eight days. Dkt. 16. In an Order dated March 3, 2020, the Court confirmed that this action had been pending United States District Court Northern District of California 6 7 for over 120 days and service upon Defendant Martin had not been effectuated. Dkt. 17 at 2. The 8 Court further noted that Plaintiff had failed to provide the current address of this Defendant and 9 the time frame for doing so had passed. Id. Therefore, all claims against Defendant Martin were 10 dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Id. at 1-2 (citing Walker 11 v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (prisoner failed to show cause why complaint 12 against prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove 13 that he provided Marshal with sufficient information to serve official or that he requested that 14 official be served), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995)). 15 The parties are presently before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by 16 Defendant Labahn (hereinafter “Defendant”), the only remaining Defendant in this action. Dkts. 17 18, 18-1. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s aforementioned due process claim is barred as a 18 result of prior state court judgments entered in actions arising from the same incident in this 19 federal action. In the alternative, Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that the 20 undisputed evidence indicates that Defendant did not violate Plaintiff’s due process rights, and 21 that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Even though Plaintiff was given the opportunity 22 to do so, he has not filed an opposition, and the time for doing so has passed. 23 Having read and considered the papers submitted in connection with this matter, the Court 24 GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and his request for judicial notice (“RJN”). 25 II. 26 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendant requests that this Court take judicial notice of certain state court documents 27 (filed in Plaintiff’s underlying criminal case and state habeas actions) under Federal Rule of 28 Evidence 201, in support of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 18-1; RJN, Exs. A2 1 D. Plaintiff has not objected to Defendant’s RJN, and the Court finds the documents to be matters 2 of public record properly subject to judicial notice. The Court may take judicial notice of 3 Plaintiff’s state court documents filed in his underlying criminal case and state habeas actions, see 4 RJN, Exs. A-D, because “a court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well 5 as the records of an inferior court in other cases.” United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th 6 Cir. 1980). Accordingly, Defendant’s unopposed RJN is GRANTED. Dkt. 18-1. 7 III. 8 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Background 1. Allegations in the Complaint On November 24, 1981, Plaintiff stabbed the victim, Lynn Fuller, who was a bartender at a 11 bar he frequented, with a knife two to three times, and one of the wounds penetrated the victim’s 12 heart and caused near instantaneous death. Dkt. 1-1 at 79, 221. Plaintiff entered the California 13 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) on June 3, 1982. Dkt. 1 at 3. 14 Plaintiff went through a reformation process while incarcerated. Dkt. 1-1 at 80-83. During 15 his incarceration, he received rules violation reports and counseling chronos (an institutional 16 record) for various offenses, including possession of an inmate manufactured stabbing instrument, 17 unexcused work absences, failure to carry out work duties, stealing food, and failure to follow 18 orders. Id. at 80-81. Beginning in 1995, Plaintiff also began participating in vocational courses, 19 adult education programs, self-help programs, and worked as a porter and in the kitchen. Id. at 80- 20 82. He additionally received laudatory chronos commending him for his work, attitude, and 21 participation in various programs. Id. at 82-83. 22 Plaintiff’s primary term in accordance with the sentencing matrix was twenty years in state 23 prison, but he was scheduled to be released from the CDCR in April 2019, seventeen years past 24 his primary term.1 Dkt. 1 at 3-4. Thus, Plaintiff points out that the Indeterminate Sentencing Law 25 (“ISL”) gave him “a federally protected right to an actual length of incarceration” that “matches 26 27 28 1 The record shows that Plaintiff submitted a notice of change of address dated April 24, 2019, which indicated that he no longer was incarcerated at CTF. Dkt. 5. Therefore, the Court assumes Plaintiff was released from the CDCR as of April 24, 2019. 3 1 his culpability and reformation, as set out in the matrix, and not the crime . . . .” Dkt. 1-1 at 3, 7, 2 44. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant deprived him of such a sentence by refusing to set a 3 uniform term under the ISL and by denying Plaintiff parole at his hearing on June 13, 2017. See 4 id.; see also id. at 260. 2. Plaintiff’s Sentencing 5 a. The ISL and the Determinate Sentencing Law (“DSL”) 6 An inmate who committed a felony before July 1, 1977 was sentenced under the ISL. United States District Court Northern District of California 7 8 Guzman v. Morris, 644 F.2d 1295, 1296 (9th Cir. 1981). Under the ISL, state courts sentenced 9 criminal defendants within a range of time as allowed by law, but the former California Adult 10 Authority determined the time such defendants would actually serve. Id. The DSL, which was 11 intended to achieve uniformity in sentencing, replaced the ISL, previously codified in section 1168 12 of the California Penal Code on July 1, 1977. Id.; Cal. Penal Code, § 1170. The DSL mandates 13 that criminal defendants receive a sentence provided by law, subject to certain aggravating, 14 mitigating, or enhancing circumstances. Id. b. Plaintiff’s Sentence 15 On January 27, 1982, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to Second Degree Murder in San Diego 16 17 County Superior Court. Dkt. 1-1 at 194:9-11; RJN, Ex. A. On February 24, 1982, the trial court 18 sentenced Plaintiff to fifteen years to life in state prison. RJN, Ex. B. 3. Plaintiff’s June 13, 2017 Parole Suitability Hearing 19 On June 13, 2017, Plaintiff appeared before the Board at a parole consideration hearing 20 21 held at CTF. Dkt. 1-1 at 192-269. Defendant presided over this hearing as Board Commissioner. 22 Id. 23 Spanish interpreter Albert Sousa and Plaintiff’s attorney, Candice Christensen, were 24 present and assisted Plaintiff at this hearing. Id. at 192. Plaintiff testified that he experienced 25 abuse from his mother, leading him to leave home at age eleven. Id. at 207:23-25, 208:1-5. 26 Plaintiff also testified that he suffered more abuse than his ten other siblings because he was “the 27 black sheep of the family” and “always mischievous.” Id. at 208:2-21; 209:1-9. When Defendant 28 asked Plaintiff why he had killed the victim, Plaintiff responded that he had been abused as a 4 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 child, and “all the courage [he] was building inside” “by the time she said something to [him] . . . 2 all the things [he] had inside of [him] [was] blow [sic] away.” Id. at 221:19-25, 222:1-10. When 3 Defendant pressed Plaintiff for more details, Plaintiff stated he “d[id]n’t recall exactly what 4 happened,” but that he “probably did something to her” which led her to call his mother a whore. 5 Id. at 222:11-20. Plaintiff admitted to having consumed alcohol on the night of the murder and 6 being under the influence and that the alcohol had affected his behavior. Id. at 226:15-24, 227:4- 7 8. But when Defendant questioned Plaintiff as to how intoxication changed his behavior and 8 thinking, Defendant commented that Plaintiff’s initial responses were “certainly not direct.” Id. at 9 227:16-24. When Defendant asked Plaintiff how intoxication affected “[his] decision making and 10 [his] actions,” Plaintiff responded that “when one drinks . . . one commits . . . things that . . . are 11 not in good judgment.” Id. at 228:8-13. 12 Attorney Christensen argued on Plaintiff’s behalf that Plaintiff was ready to be paroled 13 because of the following: his youth at the time of the offense (i.e., 21 years old), his growth and 14 maturity over the last 31 years, his limited education when he was first incarcerated, the job skills 15 he had attained while imprisoned, his lack of criminal history before his commitment offense, his 16 control over his impulses, a psychologist’s conclusion that he presented an overall low risk of 17 violence, his participation in programming, his multiple letters of support, his plans to work for 18 his family farm in Honduras upon release, and his abstinence from alcohol. Id. at 253:21-25, 19 254:1-25, 255:5-12, 15-25, 256:2-12. 20 Defendant denied Plaintiff parole for three years. Id. at 260:7-13. Defendant presented the 21 statement of reasoning for the three-year denial. Id. at 260-266. Defendant stated that the Board 22 believed that Plaintiff “pose[d] a present risk of danger to society and a threat to public safety if 23 released from prison and [was], therefor, not suitable for parole or release.” Id. at 260:7-10. 24 Defendant acknowledged the positive factors favoring parole, namely that Plaintiff: did not have 25 any “history of violent crime prior to this murder [at issue]”; was 57 years old, an age that 26 “suggest[ed] a statistically reduced risk of violent recidivism”; had been involved in programming 27 in an “increasingly positive fashion” since his 2010 hearing; had articulated reasonable plans for 28 release in Honduras; and had not had any serious rules violation reports for eight years. Id. at 5 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 260:13-24, 261:1. At the same time, Defendant noted, Plaintiff declined to provide satisfactory 2 responses to questions about the commitment offense despite his apparent ability to do so. Id. at 3 261:17-24, 262:1, 263:9-12. Specifically, Plaintiff was unable to verbalize the rationale for his 4 actions toward the victim and to explain what transpired specifically between them that 5 “apparently triggered some anger in him, such uncharacteristic anger it would seem, given his 6 history.” Id. at 262:1-23, 263:6-9. Defendant believed that “additional progress [was] needed 7 before [Plaintiff] can be deemed suitable for parole in a relatively narrow area.” Id. at 262:23-24, 8 263:1-2. First, Defendant encouraged Plaintiff to remember “the trigger of his anger, specifically 9 in terms of his interaction with [the victim],” and voiced his concern that when Plaintiff was 10 released, he would be unable to handle situations in which others were discourteous to him and 11 drove him to anger. Id. at 263:12-19. Second, while Defendant acknowledged that Plaintiff 12 “ha[d] programmed in an increasingly positive fashion since the last hearing,” particularly in the 13 area of substance abuse, Defendant stressed that it would be “reasonable to expect [Plaintiff] to be 14 able to identify, with specificity, triggering events, circumstances and emotions that could lead 15 him to feel like drinking alcohol in a free society.” Id. at 263:3-4; 264:8-13. 16 17 18 4. Plaintiff’s State Habeas Actions a. Filed in the San Diego County Superior Court Plaintiff had filed three prior state habeas petitions in the San Diego County Superior 19 Court, and each of them were denied. Dkt. 1-1 at 312. On April 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a fourth 20 state superior court habeas petition, case number HC 18436. RJN, Ex. C. Plaintiff named CTF 21 Warden S. Hatton as the respondent in that petition. Id. Plaintiff contested the denial of parole at 22 the aforementioned June 13, 2017 parole suitability hearing, claiming that the evidence did not 23 support the Board’s decision and that the Board’s refusal to set uniform terms under the ISL as it 24 existed in 1976 deprived him of fundamental fairness by failing to impose a sentence 25 commensurate with his culpability and reformation and not the crime. Id. 26 On June 28, 2018, the state superior court denied Plaintiff’s fourth petition. Dkt. 1-1 at 27 313-14. The Court rejected Plaintiff’s reliance on prior decisions from the Board and California 28 courts, as they pertained to other individuals. Id. at 314. It noted that the present state of the law 6 1 as it was controlling and that Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the current law was insufficient to 2 challenge the Board’s three-year parole denial. Id. The Court found that Plaintiff had not stated a 3 prima facie case for relief because “[his] claim of fundamental unfairness arises out of what he 4 believes the law should be, rather than what it is.” Id. 5 6 On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a state habeas petition, case number D074302, in the 7 California Court of Appeal. RJN, Ex. D. Again, Plaintiff named Warden Hatton. Id. Plaintiff 8 repeated the exact same arguments in the petition he had submitted to the San Diego County 9 Superior Court. Id., Ex. D at 3-57 10 United States District Court Northern District of California b. Filed in the California Court of Appeal On July 26, 2018, the state appellate court denied this petition. Dkt. 1-1 at 317-19. It 11 stated that the Board “expressly referenced the regulatory factors that it was required to consider 12 to determine whether [Plaintiff] was suitable for parole.” Id. at 318. The state appellate court 13 acknowledged that the Board had found “‘some positives’ tending to show that [Plaintiff] was 14 suitable for parole,” including Plaintiff’s age at the time of the hearing (57 years old), youth at the 15 time of the offense, lack of violent criminal history before his commitment offense, lack of 16 disciplinary infractions during his last several years in prison, participation in programming, and 17 reasonable parole plans to return to Honduras and work on a family farm. Id. The court also 18 noted that Plaintiff’s comprehensive risk assessment prepared by the forensic psychologist who 19 interviewed him was generally positive and found that he presented a “non-elevated risk [for 20 violence] relative to other parolees.” Id. However, the court stated that the Board found these 21 factors were outweighed by Plaintiff’s inability to verbalize his rationale for the crime and to 22 articulate what led to his actions, and one of the Board members believed Plaintiff was lying about 23 what, if anything, he recalled about the murder. Id. at 318-19. The court concluded that because 24 “the Board considered the relevant factors, and a modicum of evidence support[ed] its conclusion 25 that [Plaintiff] [was] not suitable for parole.” Id. at 319. 26 27 28 c. Filed in the California Supreme Court On August 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a state habeas petition, case number S250540, in the California Supreme Court. Dkt. 1-1 at 42-100, 102-190. Again, Plaintiff named Warden Hatton. 7 1 Id. Plaintiff repeated the exact same arguments in the state habeas petitions he had submitted to 2 the lower courts. Id. According to the California Supreme Court’s official website, Plaintiff’s state habeas United States District Court Northern District of California 3 4 petition filed on August 9, 2018 in the California Supreme Court was summarily denied on May 5 15, 2019. See Rodriguez (Cesar A.) On H.C., Cal. S. Ct. No. S250540. 6 B. 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a party may move for summary judgment Legal Standard 8 on some or all of the claims or defenses presented in an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)(1). “The 9 court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any 10 material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.; see Anderson v. 11 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party has the burden of 12 establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 13 317, 323 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (requiring citation to “particular parts of materials in 14 the record”). If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non- 15 moving party to present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex, 16 477 U.S. at 324; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 17 (1986). 18 Claim preclusion may be raised in a motion for summary judgment. Cf. Holcombe v. 19 Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding that claim preclusion may be presented in a 20 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). In the preclusion context, a federal court may take judicial 21 notice of the record in the earlier proceeding. Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 22 420 F.3d 1022, 1037 (9th Cir. 2005). Judicial notice is properly taken of public records, such as 23 transcripts, orders, and decisions made by other courts or administrative agencies. See Biggs v. 24 Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 915 n.3 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[m]aterials from a proceeding in another tribunal 25 are appropriate for judicial notice”), overruled in part on other grounds, Hayward v. Marshall, 26 603 F.3d 546, 555 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Here, as explained above, the Court takes judicial 27 notice of the state court records relating to Plaintiff’s prior state habeas proceedings. 28 8 C. 1 Under the doctrine claim preclusion (previously referred to as res judicata), “a final 2 3 judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues 4 that were or could have been raised in that action.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). 5 “Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its 6 judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of 7 action involving a party to the first case.” Id. These doctrines bar not only every claim that has 8 been raised and decided, but also the assertion of any legal theory or ground for recovery that 9 might have been raised in the first action. McClain v. Apodaca, 793 F.2d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Analysis of Summary Judgment Based on Claim Preclusion and Collateral Estoppel 1986). When the effect of a state court judgment is at issue, federal courts must apply the law of 12 the forum state to determine the preclusive effect of the judgment. Migra v. Warren City Sch. 13 Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U.S. 75, 84 (1984). California law provides that a final judgment in state 14 court “precludes further proceedings if they are based on the same cause of action.” Brodheim v. 15 Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 16 Reasoned denials of California habeas petitions have claim or issue preclusive effect on 17 subsequent section 1983 actions. See Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th 18 Cir. 2014) (claim preclusive effect); Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1347 (9th Cir. 19 1981) (issue preclusive effect). And a state habeas proceeding may preclude an identical issue 20 from being relitigated in a subsequent section 1983 action if the state habeas court afforded a full 21 and fair opportunity for the issue to be heard and determined under federal standards. See 22 Silverton, 644 F.2d at 1346-47. 23 24 1. Claim Preclusion For claim preclusion to apply, “three requirements have to be met: (1) the second lawsuit 25 must involve the same ‘cause of action’ as the first one, (2) there must have been a final judgment 26 on the merits in the first lawsuit and (3) the party to be precluded must itself have been a party, or 27 in privity with a party, to that first lawsuit.” San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City 28 Employees’ Retirement Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009). A “cause of action” is determined 9 1 by analyzing the “primary right” at stake. Id. The same primary right is at issue where the two 2 actions involve the same injury to the plaintiff and the same wrong by the defendant. Id. United States District Court Northern District of California 3 Applying the foregoing test in relation to Plaintiff’s prior state court actions, the Court 4 finds that the three requirements for claim preclusion are satisfied in this case. As an initial 5 matter, the instant federal action and Plaintiff’s prior state habeas actions involve the same harm 6 and wrong by Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff contests the denial of parole during his June 13, 7 2017 parole suitability hearing, and claims that he was deprived of a federally protected right to an 8 actual length of incarceration matching his culpability and reformation because of the Board’s 9 failure to set uniform terms under the ISL. Compare RJN, Exs. C&D and Dkt. 1-1 at 42-100, 102- 10 190 with Dkt. 1 at 3 and Dkt. 1-1 at 2-41. Therefore, the instant case involves the same 11 controversy that the San Diego County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the 12 California Supreme Court have already decided. Even if the legal theories presented and remedies 13 sought in the state court proceedings may differ from those presented in this action, the fact 14 remains that his present and prior proceedings arise from the same conduct and involve the same 15 injury to Plaintiff and the same wrong by Defendant. See Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 147 Cal. 16 App. 3d 1170, 1174 (1983) (“[I]f two actions involve the same injury to the plaintiff and the same 17 wrong by the defendant then the same primary right is at stake even if in the second suit the 18 plaintiff pleads different theories of recovery, seeks different forms of relief and/or adds new facts 19 supporting recovery.”); see also San Diego Police Officer’s Ass’n, 568 F.3d at 734 (“What is 20 critical to the analysis ‘is the harm suffered . . .’”). 21 The remaining requirements for claim preclusion are also satisfied. Plaintiff does not 22 dispute that there was a final judgment on the merits rendered in the prior state habeas 23 proceedings. As noted, the state superior and appellate courts denied Plaintiff’s state habeas 24 petitions in orders explaining those courts’ findings and reasoning. See Dkt. 1-1 at 312-314, 317- 25 319. Specifically, the state superior court found that Plaintiff had not stated a prima facie case for 26 relief because “[his] claim of fundamental unfairness arises out of what he believes the law should 27 be, rather than what it is.” Id. at 314. And the state appellate court concluded that because “the 28 Board considered the relevant factors, and a modicum of evidence support[ed] its conclusion that 10 1 [Plaintiff] [was] not suitable for parole.” Id. at 319. The state supreme court’s summary denial of 2 Plaintiff’s habeas petition also constitutes a judgment on the merits. See Silverton, 644 F.2d at 3 1346. United States District Court Northern District of California 4 Finally, the privity requirement is satisfied, as Plaintiff brought each of the prior state 5 habeas actions. See San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n, 568 F.3d at 734. Plaintiff was the same 6 party in the state habeas actions, and Defendant is in privity with Respondents in those actions. 7 Plaintiff named Warden S. Hatton in the state habeas actions, and he named Defendant is his 8 complaint. See Dkt. 1 at 1; RJN, Exs. C, D. Privity exists when a person is so identified in 9 interest with another that he represents the same legal right. See Trujillo v. Santa Clara County, 10 775 F.2d 1359, 1367 (9th Cir. 1985). For example, privity exists “between officers of the same 11 government so that a judgment in a suit between a party and a representative of the [government] 12 is res judicata in relitigation of the same issue between that party and another officer of the 13 government.” See Church of New Song v. Establishment of Religion on Taxpayers’ Money, 620 14 F.2d 648, 654 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 929 (1981) (citation omitted) (prison 15 employees at federal prison in Texas in privity with prison employees at federal prison in Illinois 16 as both suits against employees of Federal Bureau of Prisons) (quoting Sunshine Coal Co. v. 17 Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 402-03 (1940)). Such is the case here, where Defendant in the instant 18 action is in privity with Respondents in Plaintiff’s state habeas actions because all the suits are 19 against CDCR employees. 20 Therefore, the three requirements for claim preclusion based on Plaintiff’s prior state 21 habeas proceedings are satisfied in this action. Thus, upon considering such state habeas 22 proceedings, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of claim 23 preclusion. 24 25 2. Collateral Estoppel Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, only bars the relitigation of issues explicitly 26 litigated and necessary to the judgment. See Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287, 1292 (9th Cir. 27 1996). To foreclose relitigation of an issue under federal law: (1) the issue at stake must be 28 identical to the one alleged in the prior litigation; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated by 11 1 the party against whom preclusion is asserted; and (3) the determination of the issue in the prior 2 litigation must have been a critical and necessary part of the judgment in the earlier action. 3 Gospel Missions of Am. v. City of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548, 553-54 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 4 U.S. 948 (2003) (no issue preclusion where plaintiff’s standing to challenge ordinance provisions 5 was not actually litigated in prior action). United States District Court Northern District of California 6 As discussed above, Plaintiff’s cause of action in his state proceedings—relating to the 7 alleged due process violation stemming from the denial of parole at the aforementioned June 13, 8 2017 parole suitability hearing—was fully litigated. Furthermore, this claim was actually litigated 9 as the state courts considered briefs and exhibits submitted by Plaintiff in support of his state 10 habeas petitions. Finally, the issue of whether Plaintiff’s due process rights were violated was at 11 the heart of his state habeas petitions, and was a “critical and necessary part of the judgment.” 12 Gospel Missions, 328 F.3d at 553-54. As mentioned, Plaintiff alleged that he was denied parole 13 on June 13, 2017 and that the Board ignored the ISL and thereby deprived him of a federally 14 protected right to a sentence commensurate with his culpability and reformation. See Dkt. 1 at 3; 15 RJN, Exs. C, D; Dkt. 1-1 at 42-100, 102-190. His state habeas petitions and the instant complaint 16 present the issue of whether Plaintiff was denied due process when he was allegedly denied a term 17 of incarceration matching his culpability and reformation. Id. This issue was actually litigated 18 before the San Diego County Superior Court and the California Court of Appeal, which 19 considered Plaintiff’s petitions and denied relief in reasoned decisions. Dkt. 1-1 at 313-14, 317- 20 19. The California Supreme Court necessarily denied Plaintiff’s due-process issue when it 21 summarily denied his habeas petition, thereby determining that Plaintiff had not suffered any 22 violation of his due-process rights in connection with the denial of parole on June 13, 2017. See 23 Rodriguez (Cesar A.) On H.C., Cal. S. Ct. No. S250540. As mentioned, such a decision by the 24 state supreme court also constitutes a judgment on the merits. See Silverton, 644 F.2d at 1346-47. 25 Lastly, Plaintiff was the same party in the state habeas petitions and in the instant action against 26 whom preclusion is being sought. 27 28 Based on the above discussion, Plaintiff’s due process claim is also barred under collateral estoppel, and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of issue preclusion. 12 3. Summary 1 Accordingly, based on the above discussion, the issues raised in the instant complaint 2 regarding Plaintiff’s due process claim are barred under claim preclusion and collateral estoppel, 3 and therefore, must be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s 4 motion for summary judgment as to the due process claim on the ground that it is barred by claim 5 preclusion and collateral estoppel. Dkt. 18. Because the Court grants summary judgment on these 6 grounds, it need not address Defendant’s remaining alternative arguments. 7 8 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 9 1. Defendant’s unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Dkt. 18-1. 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s due 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California process claim on the ground that it is barred by claim preclusion and collateral estoppel. Dkt. 18. 12 The complaint is thereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 13 3. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 4. This Order terminates Docket Nos. 18 and 18-1. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: December 31, 2020 17 18 19 ______________________________________ JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13
]]>
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.
