Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01432/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01432-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

LOK T. LAU,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1432 FCD PAN (GGH) PS

vs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

ALBERTO GONZALES, 

Defendant. 

 /

Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action over a year ago, on July 15, 2005. 

This action should be dismissed for the following reasons.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated service of process upon defendant. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court may dismiss an action where service of summons

is not made within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. In the order requiring timely

service filed July 18, 2005, plaintiff was cautioned that this action may be dismissed if service

was not timely completed. While the court routinely issues orders to show cause under such

circumstances directing plaintiff to explain the absence of service and why the action should not

be dismissed, a more compelling reason supports dismissal. 

This action is based upon the identical facts presented in Lau v. John Ashcroft,

Attorney General, Civ. S-02-0390 GEB GGH, which resulted in a final judgment on the merits. 

Both cases allege causes of actions under Title VII (race, national origin, retaliation) and the

Case 2:05-cv-01432-FCD-EFB Document 7 Filed 08/03/06 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

2

Rehabilitation Act based upon plaintiff’s termination from his employment with the FBI in late

1998 or early 1999. In the first case, the Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr., found that plaintiff

failed to establish a prima facie case on any of his claims and granted defendant’s motion for

summary judgment. See Order filed November 3, 2003.

Because this action involves the same parties (defendant remains the U.S.

Attorney General), the same facts, and the same causes of action as decided in Lau v. John

Ashcroft, Attorney General, Civ. S-02-0390 GEB GGH, the instant complaint is barred by

principles of res judicata. See Montana v. U.S., 440 U.S. 147, 99 S. Ct. 970 (1979); see also

Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.2005) (doctrine of res judicata

serves to bar a claim where there is an identity of claims, a final judgment on the merits and an

identity of parties).

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the complaint be

dismissed with prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Frank C.

Damrell, the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of Title

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10) days after being served with these findings and

recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days

after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 8/2/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOW6: LAU.F&R.res jud

Case 2:05-cv-01432-FCD-EFB Document 7 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2