Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01274/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01274-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:11-cv-1274-GPC-WMC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

(ECF NOS. 132, 144)

vs.

D. URIBE; K. BERKLER; T.L.

ROSENKRANS; E. FISCHER; E.

VARGAS; J. ESCOBEDO; A.

MONARREZ;,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

On June 9, 2011, plaintiff Jose Bonilla (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants E. Fischer,

E. Vargas, J. Escobedo, D. Uribe, K. Berkler, and T. Rosenkraus (“Defendants”) filed

a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (ECF No. 132.) 

The Honorable William McCurine, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, submitted a

report and recommendation (“Report”) to this Court, recommending Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss be granted with prejudice. (ECF No. 144.) After a careful

consideration ofthe pleadings, the parties’ submissions, and the applicable law, and for

the reasons set forth below, this Court will ADOPT the Report in its entirety and will

therefore GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS WITH

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s TAC.

- 1 - 3:11-cv-1274-GPC-WMC

Case 3:11-cv-01274-GPC-WMC Document 152 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 5
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

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff’s case arises from his designation as a prison gang affiliate. (ECF No.

144.) Plaintiff first filed a petition for writ of habeus corpus challenging his

designation in the California Superior Court for Kern County. (Id.) This petition was

denied. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a subsequent petition in the California Court of Appeal

raising the same arguments. (Id.) The appellate court denied this petition. (Id.) 

Plaintiff then filed a petition with the Supreme Court of California, which was also

denied. (Id.)

Plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of habeus corpus in the Eastern District of

California challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding his gang validation and

placement in administrative segregation. (Id.) The district court recommended

dismissal. Plaintiff filed timely objections, challenging the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations. (Id.) After reviewing Plaintiff’s petition, the district court

adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, and dismissed the

petition. (Id.)

Plaintiff has now filed the instant civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

alleging violations of due process and equal protection. (ECF No. 129.) Defendants

move to dismiss. (ECF No. 132.) The magistrate judge recommends dismissal with

prejudice on res judicata grounds. (ECF. No 144.) Plaintiff filed an objection to this

recommendation, (ECF No. 149), and Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 151.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district

court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When

The underlying facts set forth in the Report, taken directly from the California Court of 1

Appeal’s opinion affirming Plaintiff’s conviction on appeal, is adopted in toto and referenced as if

fully set forth herein. This Court provides only a brief procedural background.

- 2 - 3:11-cv-1274-GPC-WMC

Case 3:11-cv-01274-GPC-WMC Document 152 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 5
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

no objections are filed, the Court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s

findings of fact and decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United

States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp. 2d

1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2001). Under such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has held that

“a failure to file objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo

review to factual findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo.” Barilla

v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch.

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Any objections must be specific to a

particular finding or conclusion. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151-53 (1985).

DISCUSSION

After reviewing the Report, Plaintiff’s Objection, and Defendants’ Reply, the

Court concludes Plaintiff’s objections are not specific to any of the magistrate judge’s

findings or conclusions. As such, the Court assumes the correctness of the magistrate

judge’s factual findings and adopts them in full. Further, the Court has conducted a de

novo review of the magistrate judge’s legal conclusions, independently reviewing the

Report and all relevant papers submitted by both parties. As set forth in the following

paragraphs, the Court finds that the Report provides a cogent analysis of the issues

raised in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

I. Res Judicata

The magistrate judge concluded Plaintiff’s claims are res judicata. This Court

agrees. “A final judgement on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their

privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.”

Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, near 

verbatim, the same cause of action he pursued in state court. Plaintiff had a full and

fair opportunity to litigate his claim in the state proceedings. The state courts’

adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims wasfinal, on the merits, and brought against the same

defendants. Plaintiff’s objections do not address the substance of these conclusions. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report with regard to the magistrate judge’s

- 3 - 3:11-cv-1274-GPC-WMC

Case 3:11-cv-01274-GPC-WMC Document 152 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 5
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

conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims are res judicata. 

II. Collateral Estoppel

The magistrate judge further concluded that collateral estoppel bars Plaintiff

from relitigating the issue of whether he received due process regarding the evidence

used to validate his gang affiliation. This Court agrees. Under the doctrine of

collateral estoppel, “once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its

judgement, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issues in a suit on a different

cause of action involving a party to the first case.” Allen, 449 U.S. at 94. Here,

Plaintiff raised the same issue regarding the reliability of the evidence used to validate

him as a gang member before the state court, which decided that three items supported

the validation. Further, there was a final judgement on the merits and Plaintiff was a

party to each state proceeding. Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his

claims and accordingly collateral estoppel bars the relitigation of these issues.

Plaintiff’s objections do not address the substance ofthis conclusion. Accordingly, this

Court ADOPTS the Report with regard to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that

Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of whether the evidence

used to validate his gang affiliation was insufficient or unreliable. 

III. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Defendants claim the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this Court of

jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the final judgement of a state court. (ECF No.

132-2.) The magistrate judge concluded, however, that the doctrine does not apply

because Plaintiff has not directly challenged the state courts’ decisions, but has instead

filed claims for violations of his civil rights pursuant to § 1983. The Court agrees with

this conclusion. See Maldando v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[F]ederal

district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the

final judgment of a state court.”); see also Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir.

2003) (“If . . . a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly illegal act or

omission by an adverse part, Rooker-Feldman does not bar jurisdiction.”). Plaintiff’s

- 4 - 3:11-cv-1274-GPC-WMC

Case 3:11-cv-01274-GPC-WMC Document 152 Filed 09/30/13 Page 4 of 5
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

objections do not address the substance of this conclusion. The Court therefore

ADOPTS the Report with regard to the conclusion that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

does not apply.

IV. Qualified Immunity

The magistrate judge concluded that, because Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege

any constitutional violation, qualified immunity bars his due process and equal

protection claims. This Court agrees. See Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 910 (9th

Cir. 2001) (“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity unless their conduct

violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”) Plaintiff’s objections

do not address the substance of this conclusion. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the

Report with regard to the conclusion that qualified immunity bars Plaintiff’s claims.

In sum, the Court adopts each of the magistrate judge’s conclusions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Having considered the Report, Plaintiff’s Objection, Defendants’ Reply, and the

applicable law, and for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report is ADOPTED in its entirety;

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s TAC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order.

DATED: September 30, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 5 - 3:11-cv-1274-GPC-WMC

Case 3:11-cv-01274-GPC-WMC Document 152 Filed 09/30/13 Page 5 of 5