Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00231-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

CHARLES ANTHONY GREENE, an

individual,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

FREDRICK HAYWARD, an individual;

and ALBERTSON INCORPORATED Store

No. 6323, A DIVISION OF

ALBERTSON, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

1:06-CV-0231 OWW TAG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6))

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants Fredrick Hayward and Albertson Incorporated Store

Number 6323 (the Store) (collectively, Defendants) move to

dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

claim. Plaintiff Charles Anthony Greene (Plaintiff) opposes the

motion. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The complaint was filed on February 28, 2006. Doc. 1,

Compl. The motion to dismiss was filed on April 6, 2006. Doc.

10, Mot. to Dismiss. A response was filed on April 17, 2006. 

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 14
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. 11, Reply. Defendants replied on May 8, 2006. Doc. 13,

Resp. 

III. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges the following. Doc. 1, Compl., 6-8.

Plaintiff volunteered to solicit donations for Helping Hands

Outreach, a Bakersfield, California, charitable organization. 

Id., 6; id., Ex. C (Letter, United States Internal Revenue

Service to Helping Hands Outreach, confirming 501(c)(3) tax

status). Plaintiff was assigned to the Store, 3500 Panama Lane,

Bakersfield, California. Id., 6. During Plaintiff’s second hour

of soliciting in front of the Store, on November 19, 2004,

Plaintiff was informed by a Salvation Army volunteer that the

Salvation Army had already arranged with Store management for the

exclusive right to solicit donations in front of the Store. Id. 

Defendant Albertson’s operates a private for-profit grocery store

business on private real property at 3500 Panama Lane,

Bakersfield, California. 

The Store manager, Defendant Hayward, soon asked Plaintiff

to leave. Plaintiff refused, claiming he was exercising his

First Amendment freedom of speech. Id., 6-7. Plaintiff does not

indicate whether he informed Defendant Hayward that he was

soliciting charitable donations on behalf of a 501(c)(3)

organization, and not simply panhandling, as Defendant Hayward

thought. Id. For an hour and a half, Plaintiff and the

Salvation Army volunteer co-existed peacefully, the volunteer

soliciting beside the entrance door, and Plaintiff soliciting at

the exit. Id., 7. Matters came to a head, however, with the

arrival of a Salvation Army Major; shortly thereafter, officers

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 14
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

of the Bakersfield Police Department arrived and threatened

Plaintiff with jail for trespass if he did not leave the

premises. Id. Plaintiff told the officer he was soliciting

donations for Helping Hands Outreach, and again refused to leave. 

Id. The officer spoke briefly with Defendant Hayward inside the

Store. When they emerged, Defendant Hayward, acting under the

supervision and with the instructions of the police officer,

placed Plaintiff under citizen’s arrest. Id., 7-8. Plaintiff

was taken to the Kern County Detention Center, charged with

trespass, and detained for sixteen hours. Id., 8. The trespass

charge was eventually dismissed. Id. 

Plaintiff sues under state law for alleged false arrest,

violation of constitutional right of free speech under the

federal and state constitutions, and for violation of his state

civil rights. Plaintiff sues under Title 42, Sections 1981(a)

and 1983, of the United States Code, Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ.

Code §§ 51-52. Doc. 1, Compl., 1, 9.

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to attack a complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A

motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is disfavored and rarely

granted: “[a] complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears

beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support

of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Van Buskirk v.

CNN, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

In deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the court

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 14
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

“accept[s] all factual allegations of the complaint as true and

draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving

party.” TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). 

“The court need not, however, accept as true allegations that

contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by

exhibit. Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations

that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or

unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266

F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). For example,

matters of public record may be considered under Fed.R.Evid. 201,

including pleadings, orders, and other papers filed with the

court or records of administrative bodies. See Lee v. City of

Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). Conclusions of

law, conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or

unwarranted deductions of fact need not be accepted. See Western

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

V. ANALYSIS

1. Res judicata

Plaintiff brought claims arising out of his November 19,

2004, arrest and detention in Kern County Superior Court (Small

Claims) on May 18, 2005. Doc. 1, Compl., 4. In Small Claims

Court, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Hayward placed Plaintiff

under citizen’s arrest without legal justification; that this

resulted in Plaintiff’s false arrest; and that Defendant Hayward

discriminated against Plaintiff. Doc. 10, Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A

(Small Claims Court claim form). Plaintiff sought five thousand

dollars in damages, the maximum jurisdictional amount in Small

Claims Court. Id.; see Cal.Civ.Proc. Code § 116.220(a)(1);

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 14
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

5

Pitzen v. Superior Court, 120 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1378 (2004). 

Plaintiff’s claims were decided against him in a written

opinion attached as Exhibit D to the complaint:

Plaintiff was not denied his right of free speech. 

Plaintiff was denied access to private property for the

purpose of solicitation because he had not previously

sought and obtained permission from the property owner

to do so. The actions of [D]efendants in conducting a

citizen arrest were not motivated by [P]laintiff’s

exercise of the right of free speech, but by

[P]laintiff’s refusal to leave private property when

asked to do so. The right of free expression does not

mean any kind of expression anywhere in any manner.

(See, e.g., Trader Joe’s Co. v. Progressive Campaigns

(1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 725). Defendants’ conduct was

justified, peaceful, and lawful. Judgment for

Defendants. 

Doc. 1, Compl., Ex. D (Ruling in Case No. S-1500-CS-167835, LSE). 

Plaintiff had no right to appeal the Small Claims Court decision,

and it is final. Cal.Civ.Proc. Code § 116.710(a). 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s federal case is barred by

res judicata and collateral estoppel. Doc. 10, Mot. to Dismiss,

9. 

Federal courts are required to give full faith and credit to

state court judgments under Title 28, Section 1738, of the United

States Code. 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Under res judicata, a final

judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or

their privies from re-litigating issues that were or could have

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 5 of 14
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

6

been raised in that action. To determine the preclusive effect

of a state-court judgment, federal courts look to state law.

Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d

1022, 1031 (9 Cir. 2005). th

Res judicata precludes the re-litigation of claims which

have been finally resolved in a prior proceeding involving the

same parties. Its purpose is to preserve the integrity of the

judicial system, promote judicial economy, and protect litigants

from harassment by vexatious litigation. Pitzen, 120 Cal.App.4th

at 1381. The doctrine has two aspects. It applies to both a

previously litigated cause of action, referred to as “claim

preclusion,” and to an issue necessarily decided in a prior

action, referred to as “issue preclusion.” The requirements for

applying res judicata to either an entire cause of action of one

or more issues are the same: (1) a claim or issue raised in the

present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a

prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final

judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the

doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party

to the prior proceeding. Id. (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted).

California’s res judicata doctrine is based on the primary

right theory. Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888, 904

(2002). The primary right theory provides that a cause of action

is comprised of a primary right of plaintiff, a corresponding

primary duty of defendant, and a wrongful act by defendant

constituting a breach of that duty. The most salient

characteristic of a primary right is that it is indivisible: the

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 6 of 14
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

 Only claim preclusion, not issue preclusion, applies to a

1

judgment rendered in small claims court against a defendant.

Pitzen, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1386. 

7

violation of a single primary right gives rise to only a single

cause of action. The primary right is simply plaintiff’s right

to be free from the particular injury suffered. It must

therefore be distinguished from the legal theory on which

liability for that injury is premised. Even when there are

multiple legal theories upon which recovery might be predicated,

one injury gives rise to only one claim for relief. The primary

right must also be distinguished from the remedy sought. The

violation of one primary right constitutes a single cause of

action, though it may entitle the injured party to many forms of

relief, and the relief is not to be confounded with the cause of

action, one not being determinative of the other. Mycogen Corp.,

28 Cal.4th at 904.

The primary right theory is invoked when a plaintiff

attempts to divide a primary right and enforce it in two suits.

The theory prevents this result by either of two means: (1) if

the first suit is still pending when the second is filed,

defendant in the second suit may plead that fact in abatement; or

(2) if the first suit has terminated in a judgment on the merits

adverse to plaintiff, defendant in the second suit may set up

that judgment as a bar under the principles of res judicata. Id. 

California law applies both claim preclusion and issue

preclusion to a judgment rendered in small claims court against a

plaintiff. Pitzen, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1381-82, 1386. In both 1

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 7 of 14
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

 Title 42, Section 1981, of the United States Code 2

prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of

contracts. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 977

(9 Cir. 2004). Plaintiff cannot state a Section 1981 claim th

unless he has, or would have, rights under an existing, or

proposed, contract that he wishes to make and enforce. Domino’s

Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1246, 1249 (2006). 

Plaintiff, who is African-American, does not allege a contract

the making or enforcement of which was interfered with by

Defendants. Even if, arguendo, his Section 1981 claim were not

8

the Small Claims Court and federal court, all Plaintiff’s claims

arise out of Plaintiff’s November 19, 2004, arrest and detention

related to his endeavors to collect charitable donations at a

privately owned grocery store open to the public operated on

private real property at 3500 Panama Lane. The proceeding in

Small Claims Court resulted in a final judgment against

Plaintiff. The requirements of res judicata are satisfied. 

Pitzen, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1381. 

In federal court, Plaintiff raises seven claims: (1) his

First Amendment right to free speech was violated by Defendants,

because they did not allow him to solicit charitable

contributions on private property on which they operated a forprofit retail establishment; (2) his Fourteenth Amendment right

to equal protection of the laws was violated; (3) he was denied

his right to “equal rights under law,” under Title 42, Section

1981, of the United States Code ; (4) he was subjected to false

2

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 8 of 14
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

barred by res judicata, it would be subject to dismissal under

Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim as there is no

contract to which Plaintiff was a party. 

 Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Hayward acted under

3

instructions of Bakersfield police officers in subjecting

Plaintiff to citizen’s arrest colorably satisfies the stateaction requirement for Section 1983. Meyers v. Redwood City, 400

F.3d 765, 768-69 (9 Cir. 2005). 

th

9

arrest by Defendants, in violation of Title 42, Section 1983, of

the United States Code ; (5) Plaintiff was “placed in a hostile

3

environment,” Kern County Detention Center, “due to Defendants’

actions”; (6) the Small Claims Court judge was biased in favor of

Defendants, and rendered a legally defective opinion; (7)

Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by allowing the

Salvation Army to solicit charitable contributions on Defendants’

private property while preventing Plaintiff from doing the same. 

A final judgment on the merits in a prior action is

conclusive between the same parties in a subsequent action

involving the same subject matter. Res judicata bars not only

the re-opening of the original controversy, but also subsequent

litigation of all issues which were or could have been raised in

the original suit. Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Conditioning,

Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of America, 133 Cal.App.4th

1319, 1328 (2005) (emphasis added). All Plaintiff’s claims,

except his claim of judicial bias and legal error, could have

been brought in Small Claims Court. All his claims arise out of

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 9 of 14
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

10

his alleged right to solicit charitable donations on private

commercial property open to the public. In bringing the federal

claim, Plaintiff is attempting to split his cause of action and

litigate “different” legal claims arising out of the same

previously adjudicated primary right in federal court. Mycogen

Corp., 28 Cal.4th at 904. There is no claim Plaintiff has not

litigated or could not have litigated in his state case. 

Plaintiff’s suit is barred by res judicata. 

2. Rooker-Feldman

Defendants argue lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because

Plaintiff’s claim of judicial bias and legal error is in

substance an appeal seeking to overturn the state-court judgment. 

Doc. 10, Mot. to Dismiss, 6-8. 

Under Rooker-Feldman, a federal district court does not have

subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the

final judgment of a state court. If a federal plaintiff asserts

as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state

court, and seeks relief from a state-court judgment based on that

decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject-matter jurisdiction in

federal district court. Manufactured Home Communities, 420 F.3d

at 1029. On the other hand, where the federal plaintiff does not

complain of a legal injury caused by a state-court judgment, but

rather of a legal injury caused by an adverse party, RookerFeldman does not bar jurisdiction. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148,

1163 (9 Cir. 2003). th

Here, Plaintiff seeks to re-litigate claims that have

already been tried and decided in the state court. All

Plaintiff’s claims, except his claims of judicial bias and legal

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 10 of 14
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

11

error, arise out of the events of November 19, 2004. Although

different legal theories are advanced, all are based on his

assertion that he had a First Amendment right to be present on

private property to solicit funds without the owner’s permission. 

Plaintiff does not assert as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous

decision by the Small Claims Court, nor does he seek relief from

the Small Claims Court’s judgment. Instead, he asserts as legal

wrongs allegedly illegal acts committed by Defendants, against

whom he has previously litigated over these acts, and seeks to

litigate related claims against Defendants. Plaintiff’s claim is

not barred by Rooker-Feldman, but by Title 28, Section 1738, of

the United States Code and res judicata. See Noel, 341 F.3d at

1166.

Plaintiff’s claim that the Small Claims Court judge was

biased in favor of Defendants, and that her opinion is legally

defective, is barred by Rooker-Feldman. In Rooker v. Fidelity

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), federal-court plaintiffs had lost

a case in state court. The legal wrong alleged by federal

plaintiffs was that the state court had made errors in deciding

their federal constitutional claims, rather than that the

defendants had acted illegally. The federal plaintiffs brought a

bill in equity seeking to have the state court judgment declared

null and void because of the constitutional errors that the state

court had allegedly made.

The Supreme Court in Rooker noted that it affirmatively

appeared from the allegations in the bill that the state court

had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in the

case, and that its judgment was therefore not void. Because the

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 11 of 14
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

 This result is consistent with California’s policy against 4

review of small-claims-court judgments rendered against

plaintiffs. See Pitzen, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1380 (“[t]he policy

precluding review of small-claims judgments against plaintiffs is

so strong that a small-claims plaintiff cannot obtain appellate

review even where he can demonstrate the small-claims court

12

judgment was not void, the state court’s alleged constitutional

errors could be corrected only “in an appropriate and timely

appellate proceeding.” Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415. To reverse or

modify the judgment of the state court because of such errors

“would be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction” possessed only

by the Supreme Court. Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416. Since the

jurisdiction of the district court is “strictly original,” the

Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s jurisdictional

dismissal of the bill with respect to those claims. Id. Reduced

to its essence, Rooker held that when a losing plaintiff in state

court brings a suit in federal district court asserting as legal

wrongs the allegedly erroneous legal rulings of the state court

and seeks to vacate or set aside the judgment of that court, the

federal suit is a forbidden de facto appeal. See Noel, 341 F.3d

at 1155-56. 

Plaintiff’s claim that the judge’s bias against him and in

favor of Defendants eventuated in a legally erroneous judgment is

a de facto appeal like that rejected by the Supreme Court in the

opinion which originated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiff’s

claim is barred. 

4

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 12 of 14
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

clearly erred as a matter of law”); Cal.Civ.Proc. Code

§ 116.710(a). 

13

3. “Screening”

Plaintiff argues that his claim was:

initially “screened” by the [c]ourt for errors at the

time of the filing, concerning “jurisdiction” and any

pleading defects, which not [sic] conform to “rule of

law” in which the court found [] [P]laintiff’s claim to

be “cognizable.”

Doc. 11, Mem. in Opp., 3. Plaintiff argues that this constituted

an approval of his claim by the court, which became the law of

the case. 

This is incorrect. The “screening” to which Plaintiff

refers was not the court’s certification that Plaintiff’s cause

of action had merit or would survive a Rule 12(b) motion. It

only prevented a sua sponte dismissal of the case for not being

facially frivolous. The motion to dismiss is Defendants’ first

opportunity to attack the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff’s

claims. 

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is

GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendants shall lodge a

judgment of dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s lawsuit

within five (5) days following service of this decision. 

SO ORDERED

DATED: May _17__, 2006.

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 13 of 14
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

14

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 14 of 14