Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00649-6/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

Plaintiff also names as defendants Padilla and Hambly. Defendant Padilla filed an

1

answer to the amended complaint on June 15, 2007. Defendant Hambly has not been served. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS KITCHEN, No. CIV S-06-0649-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOANNE HENDRICKS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant Hendricks’ motion to dismiss (Doc.

29), filed on June 7, 2007. Defendant Hendricks has also filed a request for judicial notice (Doc.

1

31). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to defendant’s motion. 

In her request for judicial notice, defendant Hendricks asks the court to take

judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of state court records relating to a

habeas corpus petition plaintiff filed in Placer County Superior Court on January 17, 2006, as

case no. WHC-673. The request should be granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). 

Case 2:06-cv-00649-GEB-CMK Document 38 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 5
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

2

I. BACKGROUND

In his amended complaint, plaintiff states that he has a hernia which causes him

serious pain and discomfort. Plaintiff alleges that, while incarcerated at the Placer County Jail,

he requested to see a medical expert to determine whether surgery would be effective but that

defendants denied his request. 

As revealed by the documents attached to defendant’s request for judicial notice,

plaintiff raised a claim relating to medical care in the state court habeas petition. As outlined in

the state court’s March 7, 2006, order, that petition involved the following claim:

. . . The petition alleges that petitioner was not receiving proper

medical care at the Placer County Jail. Thereafter, this court requested the

jail medical staff to informally respond to petitioner’s allegations. The

response, dated February 1, 2006, was received and considered by the

court. Petitioner’s reply to the informal response was dated February 13,

2005, but received by the court on February 21, 2006. As indicated above,

this court has considered the material submitted in petitioner’s reply.

Based on a review of all the material submitted by petitioner and

the jail medical staff, the court determines that petitioner is receiving

medical services in accordance with established standards of medical care. 

The surgery petitioner requests, under the current circumstances, is

considered elective. The jail medical staff is not required to perform

elective surgery. 

The state court denied the petition. 

II. STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it

appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that

would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners

Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In considering a motion to dismiss under this

standard, the court must accept all allegations of material fact as true and must construe them in

the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425

U.S. 738, 740 (1976); see also Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). 

Case 2:06-cv-00649-GEB-CMK Document 38 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3

All ambiguities or doubts must also be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than

those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

To determine whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

the court generally may not consider materials outside the complaint and pleadings. See Cooper

v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 1998); Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir.

1994). The court may, however, consider: (1) documents whose contents are alleged in or

attached to the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, see Branch, 14 F.3d at 454;

(2) documents whose authenticity is not in question, and upon which the complaint necessarily

lies, but which are not attached to the complaint, see Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,

688 (9th Cir. 2001); and (3) documents and materials of which the court may take judicial notice,

see Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994), except prison regulations, see Anderson

v. Angelone, 86 F.3d 932, 934 (9th Cir. 1996).

III. DISCUSSION

In her motion to dismiss, defendant Hendricks argues that plaintiff’s claim, as

against all defendants, is barred by the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion because

it was fully and fairly litigated in the prior state court habeas proceeding. For this reason,

defendant concludes that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief under § 1983 can

be granted. See Scott v. Kuhlman, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984). Under the doctrine of

res judicata, or claim preclusion, an action may be barred where an earlier action involved the

same claim and parties, and reached a final judgment on the merits. See Nordhorn v. Ladish Co,

Inc., 9 F.3d 1402, 1404 (9th Cir. 1993). A decision in a prior federal habeas corpus action under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 can have preclusive effect in a subsequent civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. See Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 323 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, a subsequent § 1983

action is barred if the identical claim was raised in a prior § 2254 case. See id. Similarly, under

Case 2:06-cv-00649-GEB-CMK Document 38 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, any issue necessarily and finally decided

in an earlier action may not be relitigated in a later case involving a party to the prior action. See

Allan v. McCury, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980); see also Hawkins, 984 F.2d at 325. 

In the instant § 1983 action, plaintiff alleges that he was denied medical care

while incarcerated at the Placer County Jail. Specifically, he contends that defendants violated

his Eighth Amendment rights by not permitting him access to medical experts to determine

whether surgery was appropriate to remedy his hernia. The court agrees with defendant’s

assertion that this same claim was litigated in the prior habeas corpus proceeding. While that

proceeding did not specifically involve whether plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights had been

violated, a determination was made that the surgery plaintiff had requested was elective and,

therefore, not necessary. Absent the necessity for medical treatment, there can be no serious

medical condition, which is a requirement for an Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983. See

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Doty v. County of Lassen, 37

F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Because the central issue in this case has been fully and fairly litigated in the prior

state court proceeding, the judgment in that case has preclusive effect and bars the instant action.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Defendant Hendricks’ request for judicial notice (Doc. 31) be granted;

2. Defendant Hendricks’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 29) be granted; and

3. This action be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Case 2:06-cv-00649-GEB-CMK Document 38 Filed 08/20/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 17, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00649-GEB-CMK Document 38 Filed 08/20/07 Page 5 of 5