Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00410/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00410-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID STRANGIO, 

Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-CV-00410 OWW DLB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

This is the fourth complaint filed in this court by

Plaintiff Melvin Jones regarding his family law case in state

court. (Jones v. State of California, 1:04-cv-6566, was

voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff on February 28, 2005; Jones v.

Strangio, 1:04-cv-6567, was dismissed with prejudice on March 16,

2005; and an order to show cause re: dismissal was issued in

Jones v. Tozzi, 1:05-cv-0148.) The present complaint, brought

under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986, names Donald Strangio as

the sole defendant. Mr. Strangio was also named as a defendant

in Jones v. Strangio, a case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

instant case and Jones v. Strangio are based on the same

operative set of facts. 

A March 16, 2005 order issued in Jones v. Strangio concluded

that Mr. Strangio was absolutely immune from suit under the

doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. See Doc. 72 in 1:04-cvCase 1:05-cv-00410-OWW -DLB Document 4 Filed 04/20/05 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

06567, filed Mar. 16 2005). Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion

that “Defendant Strangio has no immunity from this civil action,”

Doc. 1, filed 05-00410, is incorrect. Quasi-judicial immunity

applies with equal force to claims brought under § 1981, § 1985,

and § 1986. See Mills v. Killebrew, 765 F.2d 69 (6th Cir. 1985)

(applying quasi judicial immunity to bar suit brought under §§

1983, 1985, and 1986 against mediators); Morrison v. Jones, 607

F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1979)(applying quasi-judicial immunity

to suit brought under § 1981). 

Moreover, Plaintiff’s latest complaint would be barred in

any event by the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata “bars

relitigation of all grounds of recovery that were asserted, or

could have been asserted, in a previous action between the

parties, where the previous action was resolved on the merits. It

is immaterial whether the claims asserted subsequent to the

judgment were actually pursued in the action that led to the

judgment; rather, the relevant inquiry is whether they could have

been brought.” Tahoe Seirra Preservation Council Inc., v. Tahoe

Regional Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. This docket is now closed and no further filings will

shall be accepted by the clerk in this case. Plaintiff is

cautioned that the filing of meritless or vexatious claims is not

permissible.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2005

 /S/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00410-OWW -DLB Document 4 Filed 04/20/05 Page 2 of 2