Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00411/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00411-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN O’BRIAN, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00411-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMBINE CASES

(Document 10)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 16, 2015.

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to combine this action with 1:14-cv-00221-GSA. 

Plaintiff states that the cases are exactly the same in every way.

Claim preclusion bars litigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior 

action, Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted), and it 

“requires three things: (1) identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the same 

parties, or privity between parties,” Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Cell Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lash Grp., Inc., 586 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2010)). 

In deciding whether there is an identify of claims, courts are to apply four criteria: “‘(1) 

whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by 

prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two 

Case 1:15-cv-00411-DLB Document 11 Filed 05/14/15 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

actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two 

suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.’” Harris, 682 F.3d at 1132 (quoting United 

States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1150 (9th Cir. 2011)). “The 

fourth criterion - the same transactional nucleus of facts - is the most important.” Liquidators of 

European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d at 1151. 

Upon review of 1:14-cv-00221-GSA, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim on 

April 29, 2015, the Court finds that the actions involve the same Defendant and the same set of facts. 

Both actions complained of Defendant O’Brian’s alleged harassment in 2014. Accordingly, Plaintiff 

is precluded from bringing this action and it is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Plaintiff’s motion to combine the actions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00411-DLB Document 11 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2