Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02036/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02036-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

18-cv-2036-AJB-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

William Sabatini,

Plaintiff,

v.

California Board of Registered Nursing,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-2036-AJB-AGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND LEAVE TO AMEND 

(Doc. No. 7)

Before the Court is Defendant California Board of Registered Nursing’s motion to 

dismiss Plaintiff William Sabatini’s motion for writ of mandamus. (Docs. No. 1, 7.) 

Finding there are several fatal flaws in Sabatini’s writ, the Court GRANTS defendant’s 

motion to dismiss. However, the Court also GRANTS him leave to amend, including 

changing his writ into a complaint. 

I. BACKGROUND

Sabatini alleges that the California Board of Registered Nurses (“CBRN”) violated 

his constitutional rights when they initiated delayed disciplinary proceedings against him. 

Sabatini agrees CBRN has a right to revoke a nursing license if a person is a threat to the 

public. (Doc. No. 9 at 11.) However, Sabatini argues “[i]f a person is not a threat, such as 

Petitioner, then Defendants are taking constitutional rights away from a U.S. citizen 

without Due Process as allowed under our constitution.” (Id.) Certain issues, he argues, 

were before the state court, but were overlooked as “state court is not the best venue to 

Case 3:18-cv-02036-AJB-AGS Document 17 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

18-cv-2036-AJB-AGS

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

address federal issues.” (Id.) Thus, he argues his federal claims––such as his ADA or due 

process concerns––were never ruled on in state court. (Id.) 

Sabatini claims he was punished by CBRN three years after he was “rehabilitated 

and free of drug use.” (Id.) He claims CBRN is abusing their power by reprimanding him 

after such a great delay. (Id. at 12.) He requests CBRN’s dismissal motion be denied with 

leave to amend. (Id. at 13.) 

CBRN notes the procedural posture here. Administrative disciplinary proceedings 

were taken against Sabatini by CBRN. (Doc. No. 7 at 8.) After a final decision was entered 

against Sabatini, he challenged it in San Diego County Superior Court through a Petition 

for Writ of Administrative Mandamus under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5. 

(Id.) In that petition, CBRN notes Sabatini raised arguments under the ADA and 

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Id.) The Superior Court denied Sabatini’s Writ 

Petition “on the merits.” (Id.) Sabatini failed to appeal. (Id.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests a complaint’s legal sufficiency. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(6). The Court must accept the complaint’s allegations as true and construe all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but is not required to accept “legal 

conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009); Cahill v. Liberty Mut. 

Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). To avoid a dismissal at this stage, a 

complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (stating a 

party’s pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.”).

Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court need not accept legal 

conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. It is also improper for the court to assume “the 

[plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged . . . .” Associated Gen. Contractors 

of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). On the other 

hand, “[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

Case 3:18-cv-02036-AJB-AGS Document 17 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

18-cv-2036-AJB-AGS

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

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The court only reviews the contents of the complaint, accepting all 

factual allegations as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving 

party. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002).

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) tests the subject 

matter jurisdiction of the court, as the federal courts are courts of limited subject matter 

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039–40 (9th 

Cir. 2003). Consequently, it is presumed that jurisdiction lies outside this court and the 

plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the propriety of the court’s jurisdiction. Kokkonen 

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

III. DISCUSSION

CBRN argues Sabatini’s complaint should be dismissed for the following reasons: 

(1) the Eleventh Amendment bars Sabatini’s claims; (2) there is no subject matter 

jurisdiction; (3) Sabatini’s claims are barred by res judicata; and (4) Sabatini’s exclusive 

remedy he seeks is through a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus.

1. Eleventh Amendment

CBRN first asserts the Eleventh Amendment bars Sabatini’s Writ. (Doc. No. 7 at 

11.) The Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private 

parties against a state or state agency unless the state consents to the suit. See Dittman v. 

California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025–26 (9th Cir. 1999) (“In the absence of a waiver by the 

state . . . under the [E]leventh [A]mendment, agencies of the state are immune from private 

damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court.”) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the Board of Registered Nursing is a California state agency. Cal. Bus. & Prof. 

Code § 2701; Armstrong v. California State Correctional Inst., No. 1:10–cv–01856 OWW 

JLT, 2011 WL 773425, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011); (Doc. No. 7 at 11). Respondent 

states it has not consented to this lawsuit. (Doc. No. 7 at 11–12.) 

Sabatini counters that his claims under the ADA are not barred by the Eleventh 

Case 3:18-cv-02036-AJB-AGS Document 17 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

18-cv-2036-AJB-AGS

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

Amendment. (Doc. No. 9 at 14.) He states that “Title II creates a private cause of action 

for damages against States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, 

Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity.” (Id.) 

To this, CBRN notes that Sabatini fails to allege any Fourteenth Amendment 

violations, such as due process or equal protection, in his Petition. (Doc. No. 10 at 2.) Thus, 

even to the limited extent the ADA does waive sovereign immunity, Sabatini fails to invoke 

it here. (Id.) Sabatini concedes this point, but states if he is allowed leave to amend, he 

could allege a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment here, thus his 

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity issue would be moot.

2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Next, CBRN argues there is no subject matter jurisdiction for Sabatini’s Writ of 

Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. (Doc. No. 7 at 12.) This statute states that district 

courts have “original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an 

officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to 

the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. By its plain language, the statute does not cover a state or 

state agencies. District courts have repeatedly held that they lack power to direct state 

agencies. See, e.g., Demos v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Washington, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1123 (1991) 

(“to the extent that [petitioner] attempts to obtain a writ in this court to compel a state court 

to take or refrain from some action, the petitions are frivolous as a matter of law”); Moye 

v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973) (“a federal 

court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their 

judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief 

sought”); Robinson v. California Board of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. 

Cal. 1998) (“federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state 

agencies in the performance of their duties”) (citations omitted).

To this argument, Sabatini concedes that he cited the wrong statute giving rise to 

subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 9 at 18.) He requests leave to amend so that he can 

Case 3:18-cv-02036-AJB-AGS Document 17 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

18-cv-2036-AJB-AGS

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

invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1342, 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If Sabatini 

could allege § 1331, Federal Question jurisdiction, he would cure the issue as he alleges 

claims under the ADA, and if granted leave to amend, also under the Fourteenth 

Amendment. 

3. Res Judicata

CBRN asserts the res judicata doctrine also bars Sabatini’s lawsuit. (Doc. No. 7 at 

12–13.) Under California law, res judicata applies when “(1) [a] claim ... raised in the 

present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior 

proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the 

doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.” 

Boeken v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal. 4th 788, 797 (2010). Res judicata “gives 

conclusive effect to a final judgment rendered on the merits by a court having jurisdiction 

of the cause.” Schultz v. Harney, 27 Cal. App. 4th 1611, 1619 (1994). However, the claims 

need not be identical in the two proceedings; instead, the same “primary right” must be at 

issue. Eaton v. Siemens, No. 2:07–cv–00315–MCE–CKD, 2012 WL 1669680, at *6 (E.D. 

Cal. May 11, 2012). 

CBRN states res judicata applies because Sabatini “seeks to challenge the same 

administrative decision that he challenged in the state court writ proceeding.” (Doc. No. 7 

at 14.) As to the second prong, Respondent asserts that “[t]he state court entered judgment 

denying Petitioner’s state court writ petition on May 30, 2018. Notice of Entry of Judgment 

was served on June, 5, 2018,” and that Sabatini “failed to file an appeal.” Thus, “the state 

court judgment is final.” Finally, the parties here are identical to those in the state court 

proceedings.

Sabatini argues that the constitutional issues were “never actually and necessarily 

determined.” (Doc. No. 9 at 20.) Thus, res judicata—and collateral estoppel for that 

matter—should not apply. (Id.) He alleges the lower court never considered the issues, or 

at least that it is unclear whether they were considered, because the brief judgment did not 

discuss his substantive claims. (Id. at 21.) 

Case 3:18-cv-02036-AJB-AGS Document 17 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

18-cv-2036-AJB-AGS

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

However, CBRN asserts that res judicata prevents relitigation of a final judgment on 

issues that were raised or could have been raised. (Doc. No. 10 at 3.) Relying on a Supreme 

Court case, Respondent argues that Sabatini had the required “full and fair opportunity to 

litigate” his constitutional claims. (Id.) The Supreme Court held that “state proceedings 

need do no more than satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of the Fourteenth 

Amendment’s Due Process Clause in order to qualify for the full faith and credit guaranteed 

by federal law.” Kremer v. Chemical Const. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 481 (1982). As laid forth 

in Kremer, Sabatini was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims because 

he was able to brief them, he was given a public hearing, and he had an opportunity for 

appellate review. See, id. at 484 (“We have no hesitation in concluding that this panoply of 

procedures, complemented by administrative as well as judicial review, is sufficient under 

the Due Process Clause.”).

Sabatini insists that because the Court, in its judgment, did not discuss or analyze 

his constitutional claims, they were not litigated. (Doc. No. 9 at 25.) However, he provides 

no law to support this contention. As already stated, so long as he had an opportunity to 

present the issues, the Court must assume the Superior Court, in issuing its judgment, 

considered his arguments. 

Finally, Sabatini argues that because his case has worsened since the Superior 

Court’s decision, it is not barred. (Doc. No. 9 at 22–23.) Under Ninth Circuit law, when 

events occur post-lawsuit, res judicata does not bar them. Mir v. Kirchmeyer, Case No.: 

12–cv–2340–GPC–DHB, 2016 WL 2745338, at *7 (S.D. Cal. May 11, 2016). Here, 

Sabatini alleges in his response a host of worsening actions that have occurred since the 

resolution of his prior suit. (Doc. No. 9 at 22–24.) With amendment, Sabatini can more 

robustly plead that these events overcome res judicata’s bar.

4. Remedy

Finally, CBRN states that the remedy for the type of relief Sabatini is seeking is 

exclusively within California’s Code of Civil Procedure. “Government Code section 11523 

expressly states that judicial review of decisions rendered under the APA [Administrative 

Case 3:18-cv-02036-AJB-AGS Document 17 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

18-cv-2036-AJB-AGS

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

Procedure Act] be obtained exclusively under the provisions of the Code of Civil 

Procedure.” Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Super. Court, 203 Cal. App. 3d 691, 

698 (1988). “[A]ll final agency decisions rendered under the APA have been, since 1945, 

subject to review under the provisions of section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. . 

. .” Id.; Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, 44 Cal. 2d 90, 106 (1955) 

(“The proper remedy for reviewing the [decision] is by a writ of mandate pursuant to 

section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure”). 

Thus, Respondent argues, Sabatini’s claims for declaratory or injunctive relief are 

improper means of “seeking review of administrative decisions” because “they seek an 

improper alternative route to judicial review apart from the exclusive 1094.5 remedy.” 

(Doc. No. 7 at 15.) Sabatini responds, arguing that he is not challenging defendant’s 

decision, but is challenging defendant’s seemingly random “abrogat[ion] [of] Petitioner’s 

rights.” (Doc. No. 9 at 29.) Amendment will allow Sabatini to solidify his claims properly.

IV. LEAVE TO AMEND

Sabatini argues that he should be given leave to amend to address the clear errors 

laid forth in his petition. (Doc. No. 9 at 30.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure directs courts 

to “freely give leave when justice so requires.” The Court believes amendment would 

further the interests of justice in his case. Thus, the Court GRANTS Sabatini leave to 

amend his petition to address the errors and obstacles Sabatini must overcome as discussed 

at oral argument and in this order. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS CBRN’s motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. No. 7). The Court also GRANTS Sabatini leave to amend. Sabatini’s First Amended 

Complaint is due by March 29, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02036-AJB-AGS Document 17 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

18-cv-2036-AJB-AGS

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 3:18-cv-02036-AJB-AGS Document 17 Filed 03/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8