Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01312/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01312-2/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

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS, III, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

STU SHERMAN,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01312-EPG (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED 

BY DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

30 DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Norman Gerald Daniels, III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges he was denied 

access to the law library at his institution because Defendant Stu Sherman, the Warden of the 

institution, declined to make the accommodations Plaintiff requested to make the computers in 

the law library more accessible to visually-impaired inmates. The instant Complaint was filed 

on September 6, 2016.

On January 10, 2013, however, Plaintiff filed a separate action that alleged that he was 

denied access to the law library at the same institution because defendant Kathleen Allison, the 

then-acting Warden of the institution, declined to make similar accommodations with respect to 

the computers in the law library. That case, Daniels v. Allison, Case No. 1:12-cv-00545-LJOGSA, was dismissed with prejudice on February 21, 2014 and final judgment was entered 

against Plaintiff. 

Case 1:16-cv-01312-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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 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.

No later than 30 days after the service date of this order, Plaintiff shall file a written 

response explaining why the dismissal of the prior action should not bar the current litigation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016 /s/

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 Cal., 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 1:16-cv-01312-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 2