Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00525/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00525-24/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

I. Introduction

Plaintiff, Durrell Puckett, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), has filed this Section 1983 action alleging excessive 

force, a violation of equal protection, and retaliation for filing of inmate grievances against 

Defendants Lockhart, Sisneroz, Abadia, Callow, Campos-Calvillo, Sanchez, Vogel, Bohlander, 

Dean, and Johnson. This action commenced on January 31, 2014. Defendants move for judgment 

on the pleadings, contending that res judicata bars his suit. In 2012, Plaintiff filed an action in the 

Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kings, alleging the same operative facts at 

issue in the present action. The state court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims as barred under Yount v. 

City of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th 855 (2008)—the California equivalent of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

VOGEL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

Case 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO Document 127 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 5
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

U.S. 477 (1994)—precluding the litigation of civil actions seeking relief that is necessarily 

inconsistent with the validity of a criminal conviction or sentence.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a party to seek judgment on the pleadings 

“[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” “A motion for judgment 

on the pleadings should be granted where it appears the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Geraci v. Homestreet Bank, 347 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir.2003). “Analysis under 

Rule 12(c) is ‘substantially identical’ to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) because, under both rules, a 

court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff 

to a legal remedy.” Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147, 1155 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (quoting Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir.2012)). Judgment on 

the pleadings is appropriately granted in favor of a defendant when, even if all of the allegations 

in the pleadings are true, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Westlands 

Water Dist. v. Firebaugh Canal, 10 F.3d 667, 670 (9th Cir. 1993). Similarly, judgment on the 

pleadings is appropriately granted in favor of a plaintiff when, assuming the truth of the 

pleadings, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If there is a material dispute in 

the parties’ pleadings, a motion for judgment on the pleadings cannot be granted.

III. Discussion

A federal court gives the same preclusive effect to a state judgment as the rendering state 

court would. 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. Of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 

(1984). As such, California claim preclusion rules govern whether, in light of the dismissal of 

Plaintiff’s state court action, he may maintain the § 1983 claims now pending before this court.

California claim preclusion requires: “(1) the same cause of action (2) between the same 

parties [or parties in privity with them] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.” 

Furnace v. Giurbino, --- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 5439760, *3 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2016) (quoting DKN 

Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 (2015)). 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO Document 127 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 5
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

A. Same Cause of Action

“California has consistently applied the ‘primary rights' theory, under which the invasion 

of one primary right gives rise to single cause of action.” Slater v. Blackwood, 15 Cal.3d 791, 

795 (1975). “‘[I]f two actions involve the same injury to the plaintiff and the same wrong by the 

defendant then the same primary right is at stake even if in the second suit the plaintiff pleads 

different theories of recovery, seeks different forms of relief and/or adds new facts supporting 

recovery.’” Gonzales, 739 F.3d at 1233 (quoting Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 147 Cal.App.3d 

1170 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)); accord McLain v. Apodaca, 793 F.2d 1031, 1033–34 (9th Cir.1986). 

Stated differently, “A claim is the ‘same claim’ if it is derived from the same ‘primary right,’ 

which is ‘the right to be free from a particular injury, regardless of the legal theory on which 

liability for the injury is based.’” MHC Financing Ltd. Partnership v. City of San Rafael, 714 

F.3d 1118, 1125–26 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff’s state tort claims alleged that on October 19, 2011, “R. Vogel, Johnson, Dean, 

Sanchez, and Bohander assaulted [him]” by repeatedly hitting and kicking him and repeatedly 

spraying him with pepper spray while he was handcuffed. Doc. 98-1 at 6-7.

1

Those defendants 

later denied Plaintiff a decontamination shower. Id. at 6. Vogel and Johnson were alleged to have 

“shout[ed] racial epithets” at Plaintiff and to have “mad[e] threats towards [Plaintiff’s] life”

during the assault. Id. at 11. Plaintiff alleges that “Lt. J. Callow observed” the assault and did 

nothing to stop it. Id. at 6. The evidence in support of Plaintiff’s claim tends to indicate that the 

correctional officers came into contact with Plaintiff because they believed that Plaintiff had a 

weapon in his cell. Id. at 8. 

 

1 Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of a number of 

documents, all constituting court records. Plaintiff has not opposed the request. In a preclusion context, a federal 

court may “[t]ake judicial notice of a state court decision and the briefs filed in that court to determine if an issue 

was raised and decided by the state court for res judicata purposes.” Manufactured Home Communities Inc. v. City 

of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1037 (9th Cir.2005); see also Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir.2002) 

(taking judicial notice of a California Court of Appeal opinion “and the briefs filed in that proceeding and in the trial 

proceeding and in the trial court” for the purposes of ruling on issue preclusion).

The Court finds that the materials accompanying Defendants' request for judicial notice are encompassed 

by the rule articulated in Manufactured Homes Communities, Inc. All of the exhibits covered by Defendants' 

Request for Judicial Notice are Court documents. As such, the accuracy of their contents cannot be reasonably 

questioned and Plaintiff does not question their authenticity. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 909 (9th 

Cir.2003). Accordingly, the Court will take judicial notice of the state court records that resulted in the dismissal of 

Plaintiff's state tort claims.

Case 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO Document 127 Filed 10/26/16 Page 3 of 5
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

Plaintiff’s present complaint alleges that on October 19, 2011, Sanchez, Vogel, and 

Johnson assaulted plaintiff because he is black. Doc. 9 at 4. Specifically, Vogel sprayed Plaintiff 

with pepper spray through the food slot in his cell. Id. Plaintiff was left in his cell for 

approximately 25 minutes after he was sprayed. Id. Plaintiff was then removed from his cell so 

that correctional officers could conduct a search of his cell. Id. Plaintiff was placed in “leg 

irons,” handcuffs,” and “triangle restraints.” During the search of Plaintiff’s cell Vogel claimed 

to have found a weapon in Plaintiffs cell. Bolander, Dean, Vogel, Johnson, and Sanchez then 

started punching and kicking Plaintiff. Id. While doing so, those defendants used racial epithets

and threatened to assault Plaintiff every day if he filed a staff misconduct complaint against 

them. Id. During the exchange Sanchez spit in Plaintiff’s face and Vogel sprayed Plaintiff in the 

face with pepper spray. After about 50 minutes plaintiff was permitted to use the shower to 

decontaminate from the use of the pepper spray. Defendants Callow, Zamora, Campos, Abadia, 

Sisneros, and Lockhart all watched the attack but did not intervene.

The facts underlying Plaintiff’s state claims and his federal claims are the same. Both 

involve the same injuries to Plaintiff by the same Defendants. The same claim is at issue in both 

cases.

B. Identity or Privity

Claim preclusion “prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit 

between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” DKN Holdings LLC, 61 Cal.4th at 824.

Privity exists if “there is substantial identity between the parties, that is, when there is sufficient 

commonality of interest.” As briefly noted above, with one exception, the Plaintiff named the 

same parties in the State and Federal actions. Plaintiff did not name Defendant Sisneroz in the 

first action. Although Sisneroz was not identified by name in the first action, he is in privity with 

the other defendants because he allegedly stood in the same shoes as the other bystander 

Defendants in the watching the abuse to Plaintiff and failing to intervene. See Hutchison v. 

California Prison Industry Authority ̧ 2015 WL 179790, *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2015); Diaz v. 

Diaz, 2012 WL 5949094, *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2012) (holding that the prison employee 

defendants were in privity where they all acted to cause the plaintiff’s injuries). 

Case 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO Document 127 Filed 10/26/16 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

C. Final Judgment on the Merits

“A judgment is on the merits for purposes of res judicata if the substance of the claim is 

tried and determined.” Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal.4th 61, 77 (2000) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). An order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is on 

the merits and has a res judicata effect unless the “pleading defects are ‘technical or formal’ and 

can be corrected by a new pleading....” Perez v. Roe 1, 146 Cal.App.4th 171, 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 

2006). A dismissal based on a Yount bar to suit is not a technical or formal defect in pleading, it 

would require reversal of the underlying conviction to permit Plaintiff to file suit. See 

Washington v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016). The

Kings County Superior Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend, 

finding that Plaintiff could not state a claim because any such claim was barred by Yount v. City

of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th at 896. Plaintiff has not alleged that his conviction has been 

overturned. The state court’s dismissal has a res judicata effect.

IV. Order

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO Document 127 Filed 10/26/16 Page 5 of 5