-WVG Grayton v. United States of America et al, No. 3:2010cv02608 - Document 32 (S.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 12/14/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-WVG Grayton v. United States of America et al Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED ) STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED ) STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) UNITED STATES OFFICE OF ) PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, and DOES ) 1-10, ) ) Defendants. ) ) MAURICE GRAYTON, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Civil No. 10-cv-02608 -AJB-WVG ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 26] 18 19 Before the Court is a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment submitted by 20 Defendants United States of America, United States Attorney General, United States Department of 21 Justice, United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and DOES 1-10 (“Defendants”) against 22 Plaintiff Maurice Grayton (“Plaintiff”). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for 23 Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 26, seeking dismissal or summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claims on 24 the grounds that they are barred by collateral estoppel and sovereign immunity, and that the Court lacks 25 jurisdiction over this matter. Additionally, Defendants argue Plaintiff has alleged claims based on 26 irrelevant statutes and cannot meet his burden of proof for a class action case. The hearing date set for 27 December 21, 2011 is hereby VACATED as the Court finds this motion appropriate for submission on 28 1 10cv2608 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth herein, 2 the Court construes this motion as one for summary judgment and GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 3 Background 4 The following recitation of facts was taken from Plaintiff’s Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) 5 Order: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff applied for the position of Industry Operations Assistant with the Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. As part of the application process, Plaintiff was required to complete a Questionnaire for National Security Position (SF86). Plaintiff completed this application online and certified the accuracy of the application on May 8, 2008. Plaintiff also signed a Declaration for Federal Employment on May 8, 2008, again certifying that the information was true, correct, and complete and was informed that, “. . . a false or fraudulent answer to any question or item on any part of this declaration or its attachments may be grounds for not hiring me, or for firing me after I begin work.” Plaintiff also completed and signed on April 18, 2008, Interim Instructions for SF-86 and SF-85P that advised him that certain questions must be answered with a 10 year timeframe for the investigation to meet required standards including Police Record and Court Actions. In a letter dated October 13, 2009, Plaintiff was informed that a background investigation conducted by the ATF revealed issues of concern and the results were referred to OPM for further consideration and investigation. Enclosed with the letter were the specific charges and a summary of the investigative information and the appellant was given an opportunity to answer and make comments or explanation he wished to provide for each charge. Plaintiff provided his response and evidence to refute the allegation raised by the agency. Plaintiff first argued that the format of question 23f was complex and did not allow him to answer each condition on the merits. Plaintiff next argued that the format violated California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.060 and California Labor Code Section 432.7(a). Plaintiff also provided his timeline as to the events that began May 18, 2007, when the police responded to an alleged domestic violence incident through October 13, 2009, when the agency issued its suitability determination which led to the filing of the instant appeal. Finally, Plaintiff questioned the fairness of the investigation summary report referenced by the agency. On January 29, 2010, the agency issued its determination that rated Plaintiff ineligible for the position sought, canceled all other eligibilities and debarred him from competition until October 15, 2012. The letter summarized Plaintiff’s answers to the charges and provided further comments or analysis based on his responses. In summary, the agency found that the criminal charges of battery and vandalism raised questions concerning Plaintiff’s judgment notwithstanding the fact that the charges were ultimately dismissed and that he failed to disclose the charges when he completed his SF-86. 22 (Grayton v. Office of Personal Managaement, No. SF0731100446-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Jun. 23, 2010), 23 attached as Exhibit 10 to Plaintiff’s Complaint, also submitted in Defendants’ motion to dismiss as 24 Exhibit A) [hereinafter Exhibit A]. 25 Plaintiff appealed the agency’s decision to the MSPB, which affirmed the agency’s decision on 26 June 23, 2010. (Id. at 18). Plaintiff then pursued the appeal further to the United States Court of 27 Appeals, Federal Circuit, which affirmed the MSPB in a decision issued on February 16, 2011. 28 2 10cv2608 1 (Grayton v. Office of Personnel Management, 411 Fed.Appx. 328 (Fed. Cir. 2011), attached as Exhibit 2 B in Defendants’ motion to dismiss) [hereinafter Exhibit B]. 3 Legal Standard 4 Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that when “matters outside the 5 pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the [12(b)(6)] motion must be treated as one 6 for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 7 specifically gives courts the discretion to accept and consider extrinsic materials offered in connection 8 with a motion to dismiss, and to convert the motion to one for summary judgment when a party has 9 notice that the district court may look beyond the pleadings. See Portland Retail Druggists Ass'n v. 10 11 Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 662 F.2d 641, 645 (9th Cir.1981). Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings and materials demonstrate “there is no genuine 12 dispute as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 13 Civ. P. 56(c)(2); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A 14 material issue of fact is a question a trier of fact must answer to determine the rights of the parties under 15 the applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 16 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a 17 verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. 18 The moving party bears “the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for 19 its motion.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. To satisfy this burden, the movant must 20 demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. Id. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Where the 21 moving party does not have the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, it may carry its initial burden of 22 production in one of two ways: “The moving party may produce evidence negating an essential element 23 of the nonmoving party's case, or, after suitable discovery, the moving party may show that the 24 nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element of its claim or defense to carry 25 its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 26 1106 (9th Cir.2000). To withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must then show that 27 there are genuine factual issues which can only be resolved by the trier of fact. Reese v. Jefferson Sch. 28 Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 738 (9th Cir.2000). The non-moving party may not rely on the pleadings 3 10cv2608 1 alone, but must present specific facts creating a genuine issue of material fact through affidavits, 2 depositions, or answers to interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 3 2548. 4 Discussion 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 action 7 involving a party to the first case.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1995). 8 Four requirements must be met for a valid application of collateral estoppel: “(1) there was a full and 9 fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in that 10 action; (3) the issue was lost as a result of a final judgment in that action; and (4) the person against 11 whom collateral estoppel is asserted in the present action was a party or in privity with a party in the 12 previous action.” Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008). The courts have 13 applied res judicata when an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolved disputed 14 issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate. United 15 States v. Utah Const. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966). 16 Here, the Court finds that the present case meets all of the requirements of collateral estoppel. 17 First, there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous action filed with the 18 MSPB. Plaintiff appealed the OPM’s finding that he was unsuitable for Federal employment and was 19 given the opportunity to present his case in support of his belief that he was denied employment based 20 on his race, gender, and disability. (Exhibit A). Under the practices and procedures of the MSPB, 21 Plaintiff was permitted to raise affirmative defenses, pursue written and oral argument, and call 22 witnesses at an in-person hearing. (5 C.F.R. 1201, et seq; Exhibit A; Declaration of Michelle Perry at 23 ¶¶3-4). 24 As to the second requirement, the issues regarding agency discrimination and his criticisms of 25 the agency’s negative suitability determination were actually litigated. The MSPB found that the agency 26 established a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its negative suitability decision by meeting its 27 burden of proof on the merits underlying the decision. (Exhibit A at 16). Further, the MSPB held that 28 Plaintiff presented no evidence to show that the negative suitability determination was a pretext for 4 10cv2608 1 discrimination on the part of OPM. (Id.) With regard to the appellant’s claim of disability determina- 2 tion, the MSPB ruled that Plaintiff failed to make the threshold showing that he suffers from a disability 3 within the meaning of the law. (Id.) Moreover, the MSPB found that Plaintiff was given notice and was 4 provided an opportunity to address the basis for the agency’s action prior to a final decision. (Id. at 17). 5 In the present case, Plaintiff brings eight causes of action alleging unlawful discrimination based 6 upon the same factual background as was presented to the MSPB and Federal Circuit. (Doc. No. 1). 7 Despite Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s eight causes of action should each be dismissed because 8 they are barred by sovereign immunity, cite to irrelevant statutes, or have been abandoned, the Court 9 need not make such finding here. (Doc. No. 26, at 4-7). Plaintiff’s eight claims, regardless of merit, are 10 all centered on facts and issues that were previously litigated and rejected in a previous forum. 11 As to the third requirement, the issue was lost as a result of a final judgment in the previous 12 action because the MSPB ruled that the agency’s determination finding that Plaintiff was unsuitable for 13 federal employment was clearly established by the evidence. (Id. at 18). This judgment became final 14 when the MSPB issued its ruling on June 23, 2010 and the period for Plaintiff to petition for review 15 lapsed. (Exhibit B at 330; Exhibit A at 16). 16 As to the fourth requirement, the person against whom collateral estoppel is asserted in the 17 present action was a party or in privity with a party in the previous action because Plaintiff is the person 18 against whom collateral estoppel is asserted and he was a party to both the MSPB and Federal Circuit 19 cases. 20 Plaintiff is precluded from relitigating the agency’s suitability determination and his allegations 21 of discrimination because the requirements of collateral estoppel have been met. Plaintiff, who was a 22 party in the previous action before the MSBP and Federal Circuit, was given a full and fair opportunity 23 to litigate the issue, the issue was actually litigated, and there was a final judgment on the merits. The 24 Plaintiff’s present Complaint is barred by collateral estoppel, and the Plaintiff’s attempt to assert these 25 claims on behalf of a class also fail due to Plaintiff’s lack of standing. See Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. 26 Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) (Where the sole named plaintiff never had standing 27 to bring the claim, dismissal is appropriate without further opportunity to substitute a new named 28 Plaintiff, because without standing, there was no case into which a new plaintiff could be substituted.) 5 10cv2608 1 Based upon the pleadings and materials presented, Defendants motion for summary judgment is hereby 2 GRANTED. 3 Conclusion 4 For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ motion for Summary Judgment is hereby 5 GRANTED, terminating this case. The Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Defendants 6 and against Plaintiff. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 DATED: December 14, 2011 10 11 Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 10cv2608
]]>
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.
