Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00165/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00165-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KITTI RUTH PAYNE 

a/k/a KITTI R. POWER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE, INC.; 

MARGARET CROSSAN, DAVE SAYER,

PCH AFFILIATES d/b/a PCH LOTTO a/k/a 

PUBLISHING CLEARING HOUSE; PCH; 

and THE CLEARING HOUSE,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:16-cv-010165-DAD-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Objections Due: 28 Days

(Doc. No. 4)

I. BACKGROUND

On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff Kitti Ruth Payne (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed an action against Publishers Clearing House, Inc., before this Court. See 

Payne v. Publishers Clearing House, No. 1:15-cv-01453-AWI-SKO (“PCH I”). On December 17, 

2015, the undersigned recommended PCH I be dismissed without leave to amend, for failure to 

recite a plain and concise statement of allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8. (PCH I, Doc. 13.) 

On January 22, 2016, the assigned district judge adopted the undersigned’s findings and 

recommendation in full and dismissed PCH I with prejudice and without leave to amend. (PCH I, 

Case 1:16-cv-00165-DAD-SKO Document 5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Doc. 14.) Judgment was entered on January 22, 2016. (PCH I, Doc. 15.) 

In a civil case, a party must file their notice of appeal to the Circuit Court with the district 

clerk “within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4. The 

deadlines are mandatory and jurisdictional. See Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 

257 (1978). Here, more than thirty days have passed since the entry of judgment in PCH I; 

therefore, the judgment in PCH I is final. 

On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant 

action against Publishers Clearing House, Inc., before this Court. See Payne v. Publishers 

Clearing House, No. 1:16-cv-00165-DAD-SKO (“PCH II”). In cases where the plaintiff is 

proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen each case, and must dismiss the case 

at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the Court determines 

that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s Complaint in PCH II is currently before the Court for screening pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons below, the undersigned finds and recommends that 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

II. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

The Amended Complaint in PCH I and the Complaint in the newly-filed PCH II are 

virtually indistinguishable from one another. (Compare PCH I, Doc. 6, with PCH II, Doc. 1.) In 

PCH I, Plaintiff alleged claims for negligence, “harm,” and fraud against Publishers Clearing 

House based on the contents of an October 2011 email from an unnamed third party representing 

itself as an affiliate of Publishers Clearing House. (PCH I, Doc. 6, pp. 8-9; Exh. 1 

(unauthenticated copy of October 2011 email).) In PCH II, Plaintiff alleges claims of negligence, 

“resulting harm,” “continuation of negligence,” and fraud against Publishers Clearing House based 

on the contents of an October 2011 email from an unnamed third party representing itself as an 

affiliate of Publishers Clearing House. (PCH II, Doc. 1, pp. 6-7; Att. 1 (unauthenticated copy of 

October 2011 email).) The defendants named in PCH II are the same as those previously named 

in PCH I. (Compare PCH I, Doc. 6, with PCH II, Doc. 1.) 

Case 1:16-cv-00165-DAD-SKO Document 5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

PCH I was dismissed, with prejudice and without leave to amend, for failure to recite a 

plain and concise statement of allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and on January 22, 2016, 

judgment was entered against Plaintiff. (PCH I, Doc. 13; 14; 15.) 

III. FINDINGS

The doctrine of res judicata bars the re-litigation of claims previously decided on their 

merits. Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005). “The 

elements necessary to establish res judicata are: ‘(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on 

the merits, and (3) privity between parties.’” Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1052 (quoting TahoeSierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.2d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Plaintiff’s statement of factual allegations and federal claims in this action are virtually 

identical to the statement of factual allegations and federal claims in PCH I, and there is no 

question that Plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate the same claims against the same parties.

(Compare PCH I with PCH II.) The claims Plaintiff raises in this action were previously 

dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. “A complaint which fails 

to comply with rules 8(a) and 8(e) may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to rule 41(b)[,]” 

Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981) (collecting cases), and a 

dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) is a “final judgment upon the merits.”1 

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are absolutely barred pursuant to the doctrine of res 

judicata, Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed, with prejudice and without leave to amend. 

Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1052.

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and Defendants are entitled to 

dismissal of the claims, with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 

Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. 

 

1

 Rule 41(b) provides in pertinent part:

“For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court, a 

defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him . . . . Unless the court 

in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision . . . operates as an 

adjudication upon the merits.” 

Case 1:16-cv-00165-DAD-SKO Document 5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within twentyeight (28) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. 2014). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00165-DAD-SKO Document 5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 4