Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01490/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01490-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

- 1 - 06CV1490

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSEL WHITECLOUD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1490-LAB (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Dkt No. 8]

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AUSA

RICHARD CHENG, and DOES 1

THROUGH 4,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Russel Whitecloud ("Whitecloud"), proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint on

February 21, 2006 in San Diego County Superior Court seeking damages for alleged "false

imprisonment" for the six years and seven months he served in federal prison in Taft, California

following his jury trial and conviction in 1997 for Social Security fraud in the making of false

statements in his application for benefits. He named as defendants the United States and Assistant

United States Attorney Richard Cheng, his prosecutor at the 1997 trial, and purported to proceed under

CAL.CIV.CODE §§ 1799.2, 3281, and 1431.2. The United States removed the action from state court,

certified Mr. Cheng was acting in the scope of his employment as a federal employee withe respect

to any events recited in Whitecloud's Complaint, and this court concurred the action must be deemed

an action brought against the United States and governed, therefore, by the provisions of the Federal

Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq.

Case 3:06-cv-01490-LAB-CAB Document 12 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 The government represents the Ninth Circuit has already declared Whitecloud a vexatious litigant

with respect to his multiple appeals.

2

 Case No. 01cv0682-L(LSP). Whitecloud alleged substantially the same facts and asserted the same

arguments as in this case: his 1997 prosecution and conviction of Social Security fraud based on his false

statements in an application for benefits; and prosecutor Chang's conduct at the trial purportedly violated his

civil rights. See Schweiner Decl. Exhs. A, B.

- 2 - 06CV1490

The United States now moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject

matter (FED.R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1)) and for failure to state a claim (FED.R.CIV. P. 12(b)(6)). Defendant

also moves for sanctions against Whitecloud in the form of a declaration Whitecloud is a vexatious

litigant whose access to the court must be supervised and limited through an injunction requiring that

he obtain leave of court before filing any further lawsuits, at a minimum with respect to any issue

associated with his 1997 conviction for Social Security fraud.1 Whitecloud has filed Opposition to the

Motion, simply revisiting his allegations Mr. Cheng submitted false evidence at the criminal trial,

failure of the government to prove he committed the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced,

and the service of his sentence was accordingly "false imprisonment" and a purported violation of his

civil rights. The government apparently elected to waste no further resources on this litigant and these

claims, as no Reply was filed. 

As demonstrated by the government, in reliance on judicial records of which this court may

take judicial notice, Whitecloud pursued the same claims (under civil rights violation theories) five

years ago in this court arising from the same facts as he alleges in this Complaint, albeit using a

different name ("Thomas Russel,"one of several names the government substantiates Whitecloud has

used in multiple legal proceedings he has initiated) and naming as the defendant only Richard Cheng.2

By Order entered April 29, 2002, District Judge M. James Lorenz granted defendant's Motion For

Summary Judgement. Judge Lorenz held all Whitecloud's claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477 (1994) and by the prosecutor's absolute immunity from suit.

The government advances two theories entitling it to a dismissal of this action: any further

review of Whitecloud's redundant claims is barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and Whitecloud

failed to meet the jurisdictional prerequisites of the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") requiring any

plaintiff desiring to sue the federal government to comply with the administrative claims procedures

prior to seeking judicial relief. Both arguments are well-taken.

Case 3:06-cv-01490-LAB-CAB Document 12 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

 The criteria identified in Costantini are: "(1) whether rights 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. . . . The last of these criteria

is the most important." Costantini, 681 F.2d at 1201-02 (citation omitted).

- 3 - 06CV1490

"The doctrine of res judicata reflects the refusal of law to tolerate needless litigation." Angel

v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 192-93 (1947) ("Litigation is needless if, by fair process, a controversy

has once gone through the courts to conclusion"). The doctrine bars parties from relitigating claims

that were or could have been raised in earlier actions. See, e.g., Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health

Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001). The government's moving papers demonstrate

Whitecloud's alleged civil rights violations in his 2001 Complaint and his claim of false imprisonment

in this action are essentially the same challenge to his 1997 prosecution and conviction for Social

Security fraud, irrespective of the denominated legal theories in the pleadings, with no material factual

difference. The court has applied the criteria of Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199,

1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982) to conclude res judicata bars Whitecloud's claims, warranting dismissal of

this action with prejudice.3

In addition, even were Whitecloud's claims to survive a res judicata analysis, his failure to

comply with the prerequisite administrative procedures mandated by the FTCA deprive this court of

subject matter jurisdiction. See Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1992) ("the

administrative claim requirements of Section 2675(a) are jurisdictional in nature, and must be strictly

adhered to"). Whitecloud seeks money damages for alleged tortious conduct by government employee

Mr. Cheng. He has failed to demonstrate he has satisfied the requirement he present an administrative

claim to the proper federal agency before bringing suit. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The Declaration of Aleta

Bodolay in support of the Motion substantiates he has not done so, and the United States has not

waived its sovereign immunity. Moreover, the statute of limitations to satisfy the FTCA is two years

from the date of accrual of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). Nearly ten years have passed since

Whitecloud's 1997 trial, conviction and sentencing, the subject matter of his Complaint. Any attempt

at this late date to file an administrative tort claim with the Department of Justice regarding the

conduct of those criminal proceedings would be futile, as FTCA claims are forever barred upon

expiration of the statute of limitations. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 1995).

Case 3:06-cv-01490-LAB-CAB Document 12 Filed 01/04/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 06CV1490

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this action is

dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, on grounds of res judicata and lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Whitecloud is hereby enjoined and shall cease and desist

from filing any future lawsuit in this court related in any way to the conduct of his 1997 trial or his

conviction and sentence in that case for Social Security fraud. Should he ignore this Order, he will be

subject to monetary or other sanctions for contempt of court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 4, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01490-LAB-CAB Document 12 Filed 01/04/07 Page 4 of 4