Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02375/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02375-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGEI PORTNOY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2375 LKK GGH P

vs.

US BANK NA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed with the court on October 27, 2006. The court’s

own records reveal that plaintiff filed another action on September 3, 2004 which contained most

of the same allegations against US Bank. Although this case adds the United States as an

additional defendant not named in that prior case, the claims are almost the same. (No. Civ. SCase 2:06-cv-02375-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 1

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

04-1850 DFL DAD PS). The earlier action was terminated in defendant’s favor on summary 1

judgment, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment. Unless plaintiff

can show that the present action is not subject to res judicata, the court will recommend that the

complaint be dismissed.

Under the doctrine of res judicata, “‘[a] final judgment on the merits bars a

subsequent action between the same parties or their privies over the same cause of action.’” The

Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992), quoting Davis & Cox v.

Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985). The doctrine of res judicata consists of two

concepts, issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, and claim preclusion, or res judicata. Migra v.

Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.1 (1984). “Issue preclusion

[collateral estoppel] refers to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing relitigation of a matter that

has been litigated and decided.” Id. “Claim preclusion [res judicata] refers to the effect of a

judgment in foreclosing litigation of a matter that never has been litigated, because of a

determination that it should have been advanced in an earlier suit.” Id. “Claim preclusion [res

judicata] bars the assertion of any theory of recovery that could have been asserted in the first

action.” Fund for Animals, at 1398, citing Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir.

1988).

Based on the principle of res judicata, the instant complaint may be barred. 

Plaintiff will have the opportunity to show why it should not be dismissed.

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-02375-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 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

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in thirty days why his complaint should not be

dismissed for the reasons stated above.

DATED: 12/15/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Portnoy2375.dup.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-02375-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 12/15/06 Page 3 of 3