Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00430/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00430-0/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

RICKEY D. BOYD,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. ROBLES, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00430-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS 

BARRED BY DOCTRINE OF RES 

JUDICATA 

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Rickey D. Boyd (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 19, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that 

his rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 

were violated during his incarceration at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). Plaintiff’s claims

arise from an incident during which he was intentionally shot in the right leg by Correctional 

Officer A. Robles. Plaintiff alleges that Sergeant C. Smith was on duty as Officer Robles’ 

immediate supervisor and that Lieutenant M. Cabrera was on duty as the watch commander. 

However, on October 17, 2007, Plaintiff brought suit against Officer Robles, Sergeant 

Smith, and Lieutenant Cabrera for violating his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based 

on an incident at KVSP in 2006 during which Officer Robles intentionally shot Plaintiff in the leg. 

In that case, Boyd v. Robles, et al., 1:07-cv-01510-RC (PC), Sergeant Smith and Lieutenant 

Cabrera were dismissed on October 9, 2008, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against 

Case 1:15-cv-00430-SKO Document 7 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 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

2

them. The case proceeded against Officer Robles for use of excessive force and it was later 

dismissed on February 9, 2010, with prejudice. Plaintiff did not appeal.

The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars Plaintiff from bringing the same 

claims against the same parties a second time in a new lawsuit.

1

 Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest 

Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to

show cause within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order why this action should 

not be dismissed, with prejudice, as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Headwaters, Inc., 399 

F.3d at 1054-55.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 24, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Court also notes that the statute of limitations which applies to Plaintiff’s federal § 1983 claims is two years. 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1; Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of California, 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014).

Plaintiff may have also been entitled to two additional years under the applicable tolling statute, if he is not serving a 

sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1.

 

Case 1:15-cv-00430-SKO Document 7 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 2