Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01397/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01397-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Feliciano Gallegos (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on September 15, 

2015. On May 11, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended complaint with leave to 

amend “only his procedural due process claim related to his allegedly improper gang validation.” 

Doc. 15 at p. 11.

On July 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint. In his third amended complaint, 

Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment were violated by his validation as a gang member in 2010 and his retention in the Secured 

FELICIANO GALLEGOS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STAINER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01397-BAM (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY 

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

Case 1:15-cv-01397-BAM Document 22 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Housing Unit. Plaintiff also alleges that his rights were violated because other courts denied his 

requests for an evidentiary hearing, production of documents and counsel. 1 

However, previously, on February 12, 2012, Plaintiff had brought a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus alleging that his validation as an associate of the Mexican Mafia (EME) prison gang and 

retention in the Secured Housing Unit since 2010 violated his Due Process and First Amendment

rights. He also alleged that other courts had denied his requests for evidentiary hearings and the 

production of documents. In that action, Gallegos v. Gipson, 1:13-cv-00221-MJS, the Court 

considered the merits of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims regarding his placement in the Secured 

Housing Unit and gang validation. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s claims failed on the merits 

and that he received constitutionally adequate safeguards at his gang validation proceeding. The Court 

therefore dismissed the petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. On June 3, 2013, 

Plaintiff sought reconsideration, appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing, which were 

denied by the Court on July 24, 2013. On April 4, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

denied Plaintiff’s request for a certificate of appealability. 

The doctrine of res judicata bars the relitigation of issues previously decided. Hawkins v. 

Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 324 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Indeed, res judicata bars relitigation in § 1983 

civil rights proceedings of issues previously decided in federal habeas proceedings. Id. at 323-24. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to show cause within thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, as barred by the doctrine 

of res judicata. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff was granted leave to pursue only his procedural due process claim related to his allegedly improper gang 

validation in this action. 

Case 1:15-cv-01397-BAM Document 22 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 1:15-cv-01397-BAM Document 22 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 3