Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00011/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00011-14/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

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

ROBERT MAESHACK,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING MOTION TO DISMISS BY

DEFENDANTS HARBINSON AND

McINTYRE BE GRANTED, WITH

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED, BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF

RES JUDICATA

(Doc. 38.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

Findings and Recommendations on Motion to Dismiss

By Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre

Plaintiff Robert Maeshack (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 22, 2005, at the

Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (Doc.

1.) On January 5, 2006, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District. 

(Doc. 5.) This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint filed on March 16, 2007,

against defendants MTA Harbinson, Dr. McIntyre, Dr. Weed, and Dr. Sweetland for denial of

adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and for medical malpractice under

state law. (Doc. 17.) 1

All other claims and defendants were dismissed by the Court on January 13, 2009. (Doc. 25.)

1

1

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 12
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

On May 6, 2009, defendants Harbinson and McIntyre (“Defendants”) filed a motion to

dismiss plaintiff ’s claims against them, based on the doctrine of res judicata, and for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 38.) 

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on September 4, 2009. (Doc. 55.) Defendants did not file

a reply to the opposition. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

“The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint,” Schneider v. California

Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), which must contain “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,

to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quotingBell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)); Moss

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls

short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct at 1949 (citing

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe

I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).

B. Res Judicata

The doctrine of res judicata bars the re-litigation of claims previouslydecided on their merits. 

Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005). Under the doctrine of 2

claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or persons in

privity with them from litigating the same claim that was raised in that action and all claims arising

out of the same transaction or occurrence. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008);

The Supreme Court recently clarified that the terms “claim preclusion” and “issue preclusion” are

2

collectively referred to as “res judicata.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008).

2

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 12
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

Rest.2d Judgments § 18. “The elements necessary to establish res judicata are: ‘(1) an identity of

claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.’” Headwaters, Inc., 399

F.3d at 1052 (quoting Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.2d

1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[T]he doctrine of res judicata (or claim preclusion) ‘bars all grounds

for recovery which could have been asserted, whether they were or not, in a prior suit between the

same parties ... on the same cause of action.’” Costantini v. Trans World Airlines 681 F.2d 1199,

1201 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting Ross v. IBEW, 634 F.2d 453, 457 (9th Cir. 1980) (emphasis added)). 

When determining, for res judicata purposes, whether a present dispute concerns the same

claims as did prior litigation, the Ninth Circuit considers: "(1) whetherrights or interests established

in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2)

whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits

involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same

transactional nucleus of facts", which is the most important factor. Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at

1052.

The related doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, provides that “when an issue

of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be

litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” U.S. v. Bhatia, 545 F.3d 757, 759 (9th Cir.

2008) (quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970)). Both doctrines apply to criminal and

civil proceedings, and both require privity between the parties. Bhatia, 545 F.3d at 759 (citing U.S.

v. Cejas, 817 F.2d 595, 598 (9th Cir. 1987) and see In re Schimmels, 127 F.3d at 881(noting that,

under res judicata, “parties or their privies” may be bound by a prior judgment); United States v. ITT

Rayonier, Inc., 627 F.2d 996, 1000 (9th Cir.1980) (requiring identity or privity between parties for

collateral estoppel to apply)).

A defendant relying on res judicata or collateral estoppel as a defense must plead it as an

affirmative defense. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313,

350, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 1453 (1971). However, "if a court is on notice that it has previously decided the

issue presented, the court may dismiss the action sua sponte, even though the defense has not been

raised," Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 416, 120 S.Ct. 2304, 2318 (2000), provided that the

3

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 3 of 12
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

parties have an opportunity to be heard prior to dismissal, Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1055. "As

a general matter, a court may, sua sponte, dismiss a case on preclusion grounds 'where the records

of that court show that a previous action covering the same subject matter and parties had been

dismissed.'" Id. at 1054-1055 (quoting Evarts v. W. Metal FinishingCo., 253 F.2d 637, 639 n. 1 (9th

Cir. 1058)). 

C. Eighth Amendment Medical Claim

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the

official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical

treatment, an inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner,

439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295

(1976)). The two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious

medical need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v.

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v.

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate

indifference is shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible

medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). 

“[T]he existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor would find important and worthy of

comment or treatment, . . . the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an

individual’s daily activities, and . . . the existence of chronic or substantial pain” are indications of

a serious medical need. Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-1060, overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc., 104 F.3d at 1136

(en banc)); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). 

///

4

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 4 of 12
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

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d, 1051, 1060

(9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the facts from

which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but that person

‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). “‘If a prison official

should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth

Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada,

290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Court records show that plaintiff filed three separate actions largely concerning the same

defendants and claims.

 Case Number 1:06-cv-00065 (Maeshack v. Avenal State Prison, et al.)

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on December 23, 2005, at the

Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, case

number 2:05-cv-2607-MCE-PAN-PC. Plaintiff brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

violation of his rights to adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, against defendants

Avenal State Prison, Medical Technical Assistant (“MTA”) Harbinson, Lieutenant Smith, and

Appeals Coordinator Grazier, for denial of medical treatment for a rat bite plaintiff received on April

23, 2004. On January 19, 2006, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern

District and opened as case number 1:06-cv-00065-AWI-SMS-PC. On September 12, 2006, the

Court consolidated this case with case 1:06-cv-01025 AWI-SMS-PC, closing case 1:06-cv-00065-

AWI-SMS-PC. (Doc. 14.) The consolidated action then proceeded under case number 1:06-cv01025-AWI-SMS-PC, which is described next.

 Case Number 1:06-cv-01025 (Maeshack v. Greenough, et al.)

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 7, 2006, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of his rights to adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment,

against defendants Dr. Greenough (CMO) and Arnold Schwarzenegger, for denial of medical

treatment for a rat bite received by plaintiff on April 23, 2004. On September 12, 2006, upon

plaintiff’s motion, the Court consolidated this case with case 1:06-cv-00065-AWI-SMS-PC. (Docs.

5

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 5 of 12
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

5, 6.) The consolidated action then proceeded under case number 1:06-cv-01025-AWI-SMS-PC,

against defendants Dr. Greenough (CMO), Arnold Schwarzenegger, Avenal State Prison, MTA

Harbinson, Lieutenant Smith, and Appeals Coordinator Grazier. 

On September 21, 2006, plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7.) On July 10,

2008, the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 8.) On

September 15, 2008, plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 11.) In the Second

Amended Complaint, plaintiff named MTA H. Harbinson , CCII G. Grazier, Lieutenant Smith, Dr.

Weed, and Dr. McIntyre as defendants. 

On November 25, 2008, the case was reassigned to District Judge G. Murray Snow (“Judge

Snow”) for all further proceedings. (Doc. 12.) On January 16, 2009, Judge Snow dismissed the

Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim,

without leave to amend, terminating the entire action. (Doc. 14.) With regard to the allegations

against MTA Harbinson and Dr. McIntyre, Judge Snow found that plaintiff failed to provide

information about the nature and severity of his injuries, making it impossible for the Court to

determine whether he was denied treatment for serious medical needs. Judge Snow also found that

plaintiff failed to describe what injury, if any, resulted from MTA Harbinson’s or Dr. McIntyre’s

failure to provide him with medical care.

Plaintiff’s Allegations and Claims Against MTA Harbinson inCase 1:06-cv-01025

Plaintiff alleged in the Second Amended Complaint that on April 23, 2004, while he was

incarcerated at Avenal State Prison, he was bitten by a mouse or rat. Plaintiff alleges that he

informed H. Harbinson, an MTA at Avenal State Prison, that he had been bitten, and Harbinson

refused all treatment for plaintiff’s serious medical condition, in violation of Penal Code section

2652 and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff’s Allegations and Claims Against Dr. McIntyre in Case 1:06-cv-01025 

Plaintiff alleged in the Second Amended Complaint that on April 23, 2004, while he was

incarcerated at Avenal State Prison, he was bitten by a mouse or rat. Plaintiff alleges that on or

about December 13, 2005, Dr. McIntyre, a physician at the Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown

(“SCC”), refused to provide medical treatment to plaintiff’s serious medical condition. Plaintiff

6

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 6 of 12
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

claimed that Dr. McIntyre’s refusal to provide medical treatment violated section 2652 of the Penal

Code and the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment.

Case Number 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA-PC (Maeshack v. Avenal State Prison, et al.)

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on December 22, 2005, at the

Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, case

number 2:05-cv-2599-LKK-DAD-PC. Plaintiff brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

violation of his rights to adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, against defendants Avenal State Prison, MTA Harbinson, Lieutenant Smith, and Appeals

Coordinator Mr. Grazier, for denial of medical treatment for a rat bite plaintiff received on April 23,

2004. (Doc. 1.) On January 5, 2006, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern

District and opened as case number 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-LJO-PC. On February 20, 2007, the Court

issued an order requiring plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court in writing

that he did not wish to file an amended complaint and pursue the action and instead wished to

voluntarily dismiss the case. (Doc. 15.) On February 26, 2007, due to the elevation of Magistrate

Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill to District Judge, the case was reassigned from District Judge Anthony

W. Ishii to District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, and from Magistrate Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill to

Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck, as case number 1:06-cv-00011-LJO-NEW(DLB)-PC. (Doc. 16.) 

On March 16, 2007, plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint against defendants MTA

Harbinson, Lieutenant Smith, Appeals CoordinatorGrazier, Dr. Weed, Dr. McIntyre, Dr. Sweetland,

and Chief Medical Officer (“CMO”) Greenough. (Doc. 17.) On October 12, 2007, the case was

reassigned from Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin, as case

number 1:06-cv-00011-LJO-GSA-PC. (Doc. 19.) The Court screened the First Amended Complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that plaintiff stated cognizable claims only against

defendants Harbinson, Weed, McIntyre, and Sweetland, on his Eighth Amendment medical care

claim and his state law medical malpractice claim. (Doc. 21.) 

On November 21, 2008, the Court issued an order requiring plaintiff either to file a Second

Amended Complaint or to notify the Court in writing that he did not want to file an amended

complaint and instead wished to proceed on the First Amended Complaint on the claims found

7

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 7 of 12
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

cognizable by the Court. Id. On December 15, 2008, plaintiff filed written notice that he did not

wish to file an amended complaint and was willing to proceed with the claims found cognizable by

the Court. (Doc. 22.) On January 27, 2009, the Court directed the U.S. Marshal to serve process

upon defendants Harbinson, Weed, McIntyre, and Sweetland. (Doc. 28.) On April 28, 2009,

defendant Weed filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 36.) On May 6, 2009, defendants McIntyre and

Harbinson filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 38.) On June 12, 2009, the U.S. Marshal filed a return

of service unexecuted as to defendant Sweetland. (Doc. 48.) Defendant Sweetland has not appeared

in this action. 

Plaintiff’s Allegations and Claims Against MTA Harbinson inCase 1:06-cv-00011

Plaintiff alleges in the First Amended Complaint that on April 23, 2004, while he was

incarcerated at Avenal State Prison, he was bitten by a mouse or rat on his right hand. Plaintiff

alleges that he complained to C/O Deagon about a mouse/rat bite, and C/O Deagon informed MTA

Harbinson, an MTA at Avenal State Prison. Plaintiff alleges he showed MTA Harbinson his bitten

and swollen right hand, with blood on it, and his left leg. Plaintiff alleges MTA Harbinson walked

away, refusing plaintiff medical assistance, without regard to plaintiff’s pain and suffering, and

without considering the possible long term ill effects on plaintiff’s health. Plaintiff alleges he was

left in pain. Plaintiff claims that MTA Harbinson violated his rights under the cruel and unusual

punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment.

Plaintiff’s Allegations and Claims Against Dr. McIntyre in Case 1:06-cv-00011 

Plaintiff alleges in the First Amended Complaint that on April 23, 2004, while he was

incarcerated at Avenal State Prison, he was bitten by a mouse or rat on his right hand. Plaintiff

alleges that on December 23, 2005 at 10:00 a.m., he was interviewed at SCC on December 23, 2005

by Dr. McIntyre, a doctor at SCC, and explained to Dr. McIntyre about the mouse/rat bite and the

possible infection/disease associated with the incident. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. McIntyre ordered

skull x-rays and prescribed 800 mg Ibuprofen and Prilosec, but did nothing to relieve the swelling

or to abate the pain that plaintiff continues to suffer. Plaintiff claims that Dr. McIntyre violated his

constitutional rights to adequate medical care.

///

8

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 8 of 12
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

III. MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants bring a motion to dismiss this action against them, based on the doctrine of res

judicata, and to dismissthis action against defendant McIntyre for failure to state a claim against him

under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants argue that this action against them must be dismissed because in 3

the complaint for this action (1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA-PC)(“Case 0011"), plaintiff raises the same

claims against them him as found in the complaint for plaintiff’s consolidated action (1:06-cv01025-AWI-SMS-PC)(“Case 1025") which was dismissed by Judge Snow on January 19, 2009 on

the merits, for failure to state a claim. Defendant McIntyre also argues that the complaint against

him in Case 0011 must be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against him for

inadequate medical treatment under the Eighth Amendment. 

In opposition, plaintiff argues that Defendants’ argument basing res judicata on Judge Snow’s

order is flawed, because Judge Snow’s order is barred by res judicata. Plaintiff presents evidence

that on November 21, 2008, the Court issued an orderin Case 0011 finding that plaintiff’s complaint

states cognizable claims for relief under section 1983 against MTA Harbinson and Dr. McIntyre for

inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff argues that the earlier November

21, 2008 order in Case 0011 finding cognizable claims bars Judge Snow’s subsequent January 19,

2009 orderin Case 1025 finding failure to state a claim. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants’ theory

of res judicata is inapplicable because Case 0011 was filed before Case 1025, and Case 1025 should

have been “swallowed up” by Case 0011 prior to Judge Snow’s holding, making any such holding

moot.

IV. DISCUSSION

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the First Amended Complaint for Case 1025 and the

Second Amended Complaint for Case 0011. Both complaints were filed by the same plaintiff,

Robert Maeshack, CDC# C-15018, a state prisoner who was incarcerated at Avenal State Prison. 

Both complaints name MTA Harbinson, an MTA employed at Avenal State Prison, and Dr.

In the motion to dismiss, Defendants use the term “res judicata” to mean “claim preclusion,” and the term

3

“collateral estoppel” to mean “issue preclusion.”

9

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 9 of 12
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

McIntyre, a doctor employed at SCC, as defendants. There is no dispute between the parties that

Robert Maeshack, MTA Harbinson and Dr. McIntyre are the same persons named in both

complaints. Therefore, the requirement of privity between the parties is satisfied.

Both complaints allege that on April 23, 2004, while he was incarcerated at Avenal State

Prison, plaintiff was bitten by a mouse or rat. Both complaints allege that MTA Harbinson was

informed that plaintiff had been bitten, yet refused medical assistance to plaintiff, despite a serious

medical condition. Plaintiff claims in both complaints that MTA Harbinson violated his rights under

the Eighth Amendment. Both complaints allege that in December 2005, Dr. McIntyre failed to

provide adequate medical treatment for the rat/mouse bite suffered by plaintiff. Plaintiff claims in

both complaints that Dr. McIntyre violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. 

Although the allegations against Defendants are not identical in both complaints, the Court finds that

plaintiff has raised the same claims or causes of action against Defendants in both actions. Since the

doctrine of res judicata bars all grounds for recovery which could have been asserted on the same

cause of action, whether they were or not, it is of no consequence that plaintiff varies the facts in the

two complaints. Both of the lawsuits did “arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts,” 4

Defendants’ alleged denial of adequate medical treatment to plaintiff for a mouse or rat bite. 

Plaintiff’s variation of facts does not establish that the two lawsuits arise out of a different

“transactional nucleus of facts.” The other criteria for finding a single cause of action are also met. 

Clearly, Defendants’ freedom from liability forinadequatemedical treatment to plaintiff, established

in Case 1025, would be impaired if Case 0011 is permitted to go forward. Plaintiff did not offer any

evidence in Case 0011 which he did not possess when he brought Case 1025; the two cases were

originally filed only one day apart on December 22 and 23, 2005. Finally, the two suits involve

infringement of the same right; both lawsuits seek damages from Defendants for violation of

Plaintiff describes symptoms – swelling, pain, suffering, and possibility of infection/disease – in Case

4

0011, whereas he omits such description in Case 1025. In Case 0011, plaintiff alleges he informed C/O Deagon

about the mouse/rat bite, who then informed MTA Harbinson, whereas in Case 1025 plaintiff appears to allege that

he informed MTA Harbinson directly. He also alleges in Case 0011 that Defendants violated Penal Code section

2652, which is not under consideration here except as a fact in support of plaintiff’s federal claims. The date of

plaintiff’s meeting with Dr. McIntyre is not exactly the same in both complaints, as Defendants point out, but both

complaints allege a meeting in December 2005. And finally, the complaint in Case 0011 alleges Dr. McIntyre

ordered skull x-rays and prescribed medications for plaintiff, whereas in Case 1025, plaintiff alleges Dr. McIntyre

refused him all medical care.

10

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 10 of 12
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

plaintiff’s constitutional right to adequate medical care. Thus, the causes of action against

Defendants involved in both lawsuits is identical for purposes of res judicata.

The final question is whether the judgment in Case 1025 was a judgment on the merits. In

Judge Snow’s order of January 16, 2009, he amply reviewed plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

in Case 1025 and determined that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against any of the

defendants for violation of his rights to adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment. With

regard to MTA Harbinson and Dr. McIntyre, Judge Snow found that plaintiff failed to provide

information about the nature and severity of his injuries, which made it impossible for the Court to

determine whether plaintiff had serious medical needs. Judge Snow also found that plaintiff failed

to describe what injury, if any, resulted from MTA Harbinson’s and Dr. McIntyre’s failure to provide

him with medical care. Thus, the judgment in Case 1025 was a judgment on the merits.

Plaintiff’s arguments arewithout merit because the Court’s November 21, 2008 orderin Case

0011 finding cognizable claims was not a judgment on the merits, and because the court is not

required under Rule 42 to consolidate actions pending before the court where such actions involve

a common question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 

5

Based on this analysis, the Court finds that defendants MTA Harbinson and Dr. McIntyre

have demonstrated that the doctrine of res judicata prohibits the re-litigation of plaintiff’s claims

against them in Case 0011, which were previously decided on their merits in Case 1025. In light of

this finding, the Court shall not reach Defendants’ argument that plaintiff fails to state a claim

against Dr. McIntyre in Case 0011 for violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.6

V. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons set forth herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants MTA

Harbinson’s and Dr. McIntyre’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against them, filed May6, 2009,

Rule 42(a) provides, “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the

5

court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all of the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the

actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary

costs or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (emphasis added).

In addition, if the federal claims against Defendants are dismissed, the state malpractice claims against

6

Defendants shall also be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

11

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 11 of 12
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

be GRANTED, and defendants MTA Harbinson and Dr. McIntyre be DISMISSED from this action,

with prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against them, based on the doctrine of res

judicata.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 25, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 59 Filed 01/25/10 Page 12 of 12