Davis v. United States Paralympics USOC et al
Filing
5
ORDER denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 1 Motion for TRO and dismissing case. The clerk shall close this file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/24/2012 (ejdlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/24/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
MAURICE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
15
16
17
18
UNITED STATES PARALYMPICS-USOC,
UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE,
INTERNATIONAL PARALYMPIC
COMMITTEE
Defendants.
I.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:12-CV-04436-EJD
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
Background
On August 23, 2012, Plaintiff Maurice Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against the
19
United States Paralympics-USOC, the United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”), and the
20
International Paralympic Committee (collectively “Defendants”) seeking an ex parte temporary
21
restraining order (“TRO”) compelling Defendants to “ let Plaintiff compete in the 50 meter
22
freestyle swim event at the S6 level at the Paralympics which will take place in London, England
23
from August 20, 2012 to and including September 9, 2012.” Dkt. No. 1-1 (Prop. Order). Plaintiff
24
alleges that he has suffered discrimination on the basis of race and that he will be irreparably
25
harmed unless the court grants this motion for a TRO.
26
27
The Complaint alleges that on May 17, 2012 Plaintiff, a black male, went to the University
of Cincinnati for his scheduled “classification session,” to try out for the Paralympic swim
28
Case No. 5:12-CV-04436-EJD
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRATINING ORDER AND
DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
1
competition. Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 5-6. Plaintiff was tested by two white males, and told at the
2
end of his test that he was not eligible to compete. Compl. ¶¶ 6-7. Plaintiff appealed the decision,
3
and was retested on May 18, 2012 by a white female examiner and a white male examiner. Compl.
4
¶ 8. The female examiner initially told Plaintiff he had passed; however, after some delay, the two
5
examiners returned to inform Plaintiff he had not in fact passed. Compl. ¶¶ 9-11. Plaintiff believes
6
he was discriminated against on account of his race. Compl. at 4:3-9.
7
Since returning from Cincinnati, Plaintiff has sought a TRO relating to the Paralympic
swim competition three times before Judge Koh. See 12-CV-02999 at Dkt. No. 1, 5, and 10. This
9
action is thus Plaintiff’s fourth attempt in this district to obtain a TRO related to the Paralympics
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
swim competition. The first TRO, filed on June 11, 2012, named only the USOC as Defendant,
11
and requested the court direct the USOC to allow Plaintiff to compete in the Paralympic swim trials
12
scheduled for June 14-16, 2012, at Bismarck State College. The court denied this TRO for failure
13
to comply with the procedural requirements governing the filing of an ex parte TRO and for failure
14
to show a likelihood of success on the merits. See 12-CV-02999 at Dkt. No. 4. The second TRO,
15
filed on July 3, 2012 as part of an amendment to the complaint, named the same Defendant and
16
requested the same relief as the first request for a TRO. This second TRO was denied for a failure
17
to show a likelihood of success on the merits as well as failure to show a likelihood of irreparable
18
injury. See 12-CV-02999 at Dkt. No. 9. The third TRO, filed with a “First Amended Complaint,”
19
added the United States Paralympics-USOC and the International Paralympic Committee as
20
Defendants, and requested, as in the instant action, that the court direct Defendants “to allow
21
Plaintiff the opportunity to compete in the 50 meter freestyle swim competition at the 26 level
22
(classification level) at the Paralympics which will take place in London, England from August
23
29m 2012 to and including 9 September 2012.” See 12-CV-02999 at Dkt. No. 10. This third TRO
24
was likewise denied for failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits. See 12-CV-02999 at
25
Dkt. No. 4. In addition, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding
26
that in light of Plaintiff’s failure to allege additional facts or submit any evidence to any of his
27
requests for TROs, Plaintiff’s claims were without basis and thus frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
28
Case No. 5:12-CV-04436-EJD
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRATINING ORDER AND
DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
1
1915(e)(2)(B). See 12-CV-02999 at Dkt. No. 12, p. 6. The court dismissed Plaintiff’s First
2
Amended Complaint without leave to amend. See 12-CV-02999 at Dkt Entry 12, p. 6-7.
3
II.
Claim Preclusion
4
Claim preclusion, also known as res judicata, prevents issues decided by one court from
5
being relitigated in another case. This principle applies when there is “(1) an identity of claims, (2)
6
a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.” Turtle Island Restoration Network
7
v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 673 F.3d 914, 917 (2012) (internal quotations omitted).
8
9
Claim preclusion clearly applies in this action. First, the claims in this action are identical
to those in the previous three actions. Each of Plaintiff’s TRO requests has been based on
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff’s experience at the Paralympic swim classification session that took place on May 17-18,
11
2012 in Cincinnati, Ohio. While Plaintiff has not specifically alleged any cause of action, a liberal
12
reading of his complaint suggests that he intends to state claims under the Equal Protection Clause
13
of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454
14
U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982) (instructing courts to liberally construe the
15
pleadings of pro se litigants). These claims mirror those found in Plaintiff’s three previous
16
requests for TROs.
17
Next, a final judgment has already issued on these claims. The court denied Plaintiff’s third
18
request for a TRO, and dismissed his complaint without leave to amend. See 12-CV-02999 at Dkt.
19
No. 12. Such a dismissal constitutes a final judgment. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953,
20
957 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that dismissal based on a plaintiff’s failure to plead a cognizable claim
21
is a “judgment on the merits” for res judicata purposes) (citing Federated Dep’t Stores v. Moitie,
22
452 U.S. 394, 399 n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981)).
23
Finally, the parties are identical. In the instant action, Plaintiff has named the USOC, the
24
United States Paralympics-USOC and the International Paralympic Committee as Defendants.
25
Previously, Plaintiff named the USOC as Defendant in each of his actions, and named the United
26
States Paralympics-USOC and the International Paralympic Committee in his third request for
27
TRO and First Amended Complaint.
28
Case No. 5:12-CV-04436-EJD
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRATINING ORDER AND
DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
1
Plaintiff requests that this court entertain his complaint alleging the same cause of action
2
against the same parties as previously considered and rejected by Judge Koh. The instant action
3
represents the exact situation claim preclusion seeks to prevent. This court will therefore not
4
consider the merits of this complaint and request for TRO, because the action is unambiguously
5
barred.
6
III.
7
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s ex parte request for a TRO is DENIED. Plaintiff’s
8
9
Conclusion
complaint is barred by claim preclusion and therefore is DISMISSED with prejudice.
In addition, the court finds this action frivolous and duplicative under 28 U.S.C. §
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). The request to
11
proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED for this reason.
12
The clerk shall close this file.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated: August 24, 2012
15
16
_________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 5:12-CV-04436-EJD
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRATINING ORDER AND
DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
]]>
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?
