Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01301/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01301-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Thomas Coats
Plaintiff
Michael Fox
Defendant
Mike McDonald
Defendant
Raphael Miranda
Defendant
Nepomuceno
Defendant
Dorothy Swingle
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM THOMAS COATS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1301 MCE GGH P

vs.

MIKE MCDONALD, et al., ORDER & 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Introduction

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Pending before the court are a motion to dismiss, filed on February 16, 2010, by

defendants Fox and Miranda in which defendants Swingle and Nepomuceno seek to join by

notice filed on March 2, 2010. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the notice on March 11, 2010, but

provided no reason or argument whatever for the court not to permit defendants Swingle and

Nepomuceno to join the motion. The motion to join is therefore granted. Plaintiff filed his

opposition to the motion to dismiss as to defendants Fox and Miranda on March 15, 2010. 

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff filed this case on the form for a habeas petition on May 11, 2009. By 

order, filed on July 14, 2010, plaintiff’s allegations, wherein he named only Dr. Fox as a 

Case 2:09-cv-01301-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 9
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

2

defendant but also made claims of inadequate medical care implicating unnamed defendants, 

were found to be violative of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and plaintiff was given leave to amend on the

appropriate form. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 13, 2009, which the court

found appropriate for service, by order filed on August 31, 2010, upon defendants Michael Fox,

Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI); Dorothy Swingle, CMO at

High Desert State Prison (HDSP); Dr. Nepomuceno and Physician’s Assistant Raphael Miranda.

Plaintiff alleges on May 30, 2008, while he was housed at DVI, he was examined

via Tele-Med by a Dr. Gregory Melchor, a professor of medicine from U.C. Davis Medical

School; blood tests revealed that plaintiff had two strains of the Hepatitis-C virus. Amended

Complaint (AC), p. 3. Dr. Melchor ordered immediate treatment of Interferon and Ribavirin,

which was never administered. Id. 

Thereafter, on June 10, 2008, plaintiff was taken to Manteca where he was

examined by a gastroenterologist named Dr. Tran, who agreed that plaintiff’s treatment with

Inteferon and Ribavirin should begin immediately, but defendant Fox vetoed the treatment again

without explanation. AC, p. 4. On October 3, 2008, plaintiff was set up for a Tele-Med

interview/exam again, this time to UCSF to the CDCR head physician, Dr. Joanne Imperial, who

ordered immediate treatment with Ribavirin to begin “stat,” but once again, for a third time, 

defendant Fox nixed the treatment. Id.

After nearly two months of repeated sick-call requests, plaintiff was informed that

he would not be treated at DVI, after which he contacted the Prison Law Office in San Quentin

for help. AC, p. 4. They sent a letter to the CMO at DVI (presumably defendant Fox), setting

forth two options: that the Interferon treatment begin immediately (at DVI) or that plaintiff be

sent to a mainline prison to begin the Interferon treatment immediately. Id. CDCR opted to send

plaintiff to HDSP by special medical transport on January 27, 2009. Id. at 4-5. 

Despite plaintiff’s reiterating to all medical personnel, including defendant

Miranda, that his Interferon and Ribavirin treatment should be started immediately, and despite

Case 2:09-cv-01301-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 9
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

 Plaintiff’s last name appears to be spelled as “Coats,” apparently inadvertently

1

misspelled with an added “e” in CIV-S-09-1300 CMK P.

3

his having filed several 602 inmate appeals which were granted, no treatment was administered. 

AC, p. 5. Plaintiff sent personal notices to defendants Swingle and Nepomuceno at HDSP, all to

no avail. Id. Although plaintiff kept requesting to see a doctor on CDCR 7362 sick call forms,

he was repeatedly called to medical by defendant Miranda, a physician’s assistant, who kept

telling plaintiff that he was scheduled for the Hep-C clinic without further explanation even

though plaintiff told him the story of Dr. Imperial’s prescription orders and asked him to refer to

her on April 7, 2009 and in June 2009. Id. Plaintiff adds “I attached the 602's and evidence

supporting my claims to the original complaint....” Id. Plaintiff seeks money damages for the

fourteen-month period that the medical treatment was withheld, saying that defendants had notice

from December 12, 2007, although plaintiff begins in this complaint with allegations dating from

May 30, 2008. Id. at 3. 

Motion to Dismiss

 Defendants move for dismissal of defendants Fox and Miranda in which

defendants Swingle and Nepomuceno join on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies pursuant to non-enumerated Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Motion to Dismiss (MTD), pp. 1-15; Joinder, pp.1-2. In the alternative, defendants

Swingle, Nepomuceno and Miranda move for their dismissal under the doctrine of res judicata

on the ground that a final judgment has previously been entered in their favor in Case No. CIV-S09-1300 CMK P. Id. In a final alternative, defendants Swingle, Nepomuceno and Miranda move

for their dismissal on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them under Fed.

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

Defendants point out that plaintiff filed two separate actions concerning the same

claims and defendants. MTD, Docket # 22-1, p. 4. Defendants, on February 16, 2010, requested

that the court take judicial notice of the prior complaint, Coates v. Fox, et al., Case No. CIV-S- 1

Case 2:09-cv-01301-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 9
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

4

09-1300 CMK P, including specifically, the May 11, 2009, original complaint (with attached

exhibits in that case), the screening order filed on October 28, 2009, and the December 14, 2009

order dismissing defendants Moore, McDonald, Swingle, Nepomuceno from that action and

directing that the action proceed only as to defendant Fox. A court may take judicial notice of

court records. See Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9 Cir. 1994); MGIC Indem. Co. v. th

Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th

Cir. 1980). Therefore, the court grants defendants’ request for judicial notice of Case No. CIVS-09-1300 CMK P and the documents from that case.

The reference plaintiff makes within the instant action to the “original complaint”

(AC, p. 5) is plainly not to the complaint initially filed in this action on a petition form because

the only attachment thereto is the copy of one first level appeal response (Log no. DVI-15-08-

17445), signed on Jan. 16, 2009, wherein plaintiff apparently requested immediately starting his

Interferon and Ribavirin treatment, which is deemed fully granted. It is patently obvious that by

the “original complaint,” plaintiff means the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that he filed, entitled

Coates v. Fox, et al, and denominated Case No. CIV-S-09-1300 CMK P. That action, filed on a

civil rights complaint form, is numbered sequentially as the case before this one, CIV-S-1300,

and was filed on the same day as this case, on May 11, 2009. To that filing is attached, inter alia,

copies of a number of plaintiff’s 602 appeals and responses, copies of medical reports, a copy of

a government claim form to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board,

a copy of a reasonable modification and accommodation request form (CDC 1824). Within that

complaint, plaintiff makes essentially the same allegations against the same defendants at issue

herein, contending that, inter alia, defendant Fox has vetoed his Interferon/Ribavirin treatment

despite the orders of Drs. Melchor and Imperial, as was claimed in the amended complaint

underlying this action. MTD, Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit A, complaint in Case No. 09-

CIV-S-09-1300 CMK P, doc. # 23-1, pp. 5-6. Plaintiff also contends that defendants Swingle,

Nepomuceno and Miranda have all been responsible for delaying his treatment with Interferon

Case 2:09-cv-01301-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 9
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

 See Docket # 7. Defendant Fox also later consented to Judge Kellison’s jurisdiction. 2

Docket # 25.

5

and Ribavirin. Id. Therefore, on the face of it, this action is entirely duplicative of CIV-S-1300

CMK P, and it certainly appears that plaintiff should not have been permitted at the outset to

proceed in two separate actions on the same claims. 

In the preceding action, which still proceeds against defendant Fox, plaintiff’s

original complaint was ordered served upon defendant Fox by order filed on October 28, 2009

(docket # 9). By separate order, filed on October 28, 2009 (docket # 10), plaintiff was directed to

show cause why the claims as to the remaining defendants, including defendants Swingle,

Nepumuceno and Miranda should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Thereafter,

plaintiff failed to respond to the show cause order and Magistrate Judge Kellison, to whose

jurisdiction plaintiff had consented, dismissed, inter alia, these defendants. See Order, filed on 2

December 15, 2009 (Docket # 15), in Case No. CIV-S-09-1300 CMK P. 

Res Judicata

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits precludes the

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

Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 863 (9th Cir. 1995). As defendants observe, the

Supreme Court has noted that “claim preclusion” and “issue preclusion” are referred to

collectively as “res judicata.” MTD, doc. # 22-1, p. 11, n. 6, citing Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S.

880, 128 S. Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008). 

The doctrine of res judicata is applicable to § 1983 actions. Clark v. Yosemite

Community College Dist., 785 F.2d 781, 788 n.9 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that there is no

exception to the rules of issue and claim preclusion for federal civil rights actions brought under

42 U.S.C. § 1983), citing Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 84,

104 S.Ct. 892, 898 (1984); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 97-98, 101 S.Ct. 411, 416-417

(1980); Piatt v. MacDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). Courts have held

Case 2:09-cv-01301-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 5 of 9
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

6

that habeas proceedings can have preclusive effect in subsequent civil rights actions. See

Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 323 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (holding that a federal habeas

decision may have preclusive effect in a subsequent § 1983 action); Silverton v. Dep’t of

Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1347 (9th Cir. 1981) (ruling that state habeas proceedings can have

issue or claim preclusive effect in subsequent § 1983 actions).

Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment forecloses

“successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not

relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.”

New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149

L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). Issue preclusion, in contrast, bars “successive

litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in

a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment,” even if

the issue recurs in the context of a different claim. Id., at 748-749,

121 S.Ct. 1808. 

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 128 S. Ct. at 2171. 

A plaintiff cannot avoid the bar of claim preclusion merely by alleging conduct 

not alleged in the prior action, by pleading a new legal theory, or by seeking a different remedy

for violation of the same primary right. McClain v. Apodaca, 793 F.2d 1031, 1033-34 (9th Cir.

1986). Cf. Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d, 1287, 1291(1996) (the prisoner’s claims were not

precluded because they did not accrue until two years after the settlement agreement that

concluded a prior class action). Claim preclusion applies where a § 1983 action implicates the

same “primary rights” as those raised in a prior proceeding. Clark, 785 F.2d at 786. The focus is

on the legal harm for which the plaintiff seeks redress in his second action. McClain, 793 F.2d at

1034. 

By “preclud[ing] parties from contesting matters that they have had

a full and fair opportunity to litigate,” these two doctrines protect

against “the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits,

conserv[e] judicial resources, and foste[r] reliance on judicial

action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.”

Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-154, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59

L.Ed.2d 210 (1979).

Taylor, 553 U.S. 880, 128 S. Ct. at 2171.

The Ninth Circuit has identified four factors that should be considered by a court

Case 2:09-cv-01301-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 6 of 9
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

7

in determining whether successive lawsuits involve the same cause of action:

(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

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. 

See C.D. Anderson & Co., 832 F.2d 1097, 1100 (9 Cir. 1987); Costantini v. Trans World th

Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982); Harris v. Jacobs, 621 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir.

1980) (per curiam). The fourth of these factors has been cited by some courts as the most

important. See Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9 Cir. 2005), th

citing Costantini, 681 F.2d at 1201-02; see also, C.D. Anderson & Co., 832 F.2d at 1100. 

However, “[n]o single criterion can decide every res judicata question; identity of causes of

action ‘cannot be determined precisely by mechanistic application of a simple test.’” Costantini,

681 F.2d at 1202 n.7 (quoting Abramson v. Univ. of Haw., 594 F.2d 202, 206 (9th Cir. 1979)). 

“‘The crucial element underlying all of the standards is the factual predicate of the several claims

asserted. For it is the facts surrounding the transaction or occurrence which operate to constitute

the cause of action.’” Harris, 621 F.2d at 343 (quoting Expert Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d

1227, 1234 (2d Cir. 1977)).

Plaintiff in his opposition expressly stipulates to defendants’ contention that he

has a previous lawsuit pending in the Eastern District regarding “the same defendants and the

same allegations,” concerning his having been prescribed Interferon and Ribavirin for his

Hepatitis C condition which the defendants refused to provide. See Opposition (Opp.), p. 2,

wherein plaintiff states that he stipulates to the relevant lines in defendants’ motion that argue

this as a fact. Plaintiff does thereafter attempt to distinguish the two actions, although again

conceding that “the issue is the same” in both actions. Id. He contends that in Case No. CIV-S09-1300, he proceeds only against defendant Fox at DVI, while in the instant action, the

Case 2:09-cv-01301-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 7 of 9
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

 To the extent that the dismissal of these defendants could be construed as a failure of 3

plaintiff to comply with a court order, such a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. 41(b) “operates as an

adjudication on the merits.”

8

defendants are located at HDSP. Id. This, however, totally disregards that in Case No. 09-1300,

plaintiff initially proceeded against defendants at both DVI and HDSP. Plaintiff appears not to

understand the doctrine of res judicata when he contends that res judicata should apply to

defendants Miranda, Swingle in Nepomuceno in Case No. 09-1300, but not in 09-1301. Opp., p.

3. As noted, both actions were initiated in this court on the same day and it is precisely because

these same defendants, Miranda, Swingle in Nepomuceno, on the admittedly same issue were

dismissed in the prior action that res judicata applies with respect to them and should preclude

plaintiff from proceeding against them in this action. All four factors for finding claim

preclusion favor defendants. Plaintiff failed to take the opportunity he was afforded in the prior

case to flesh out his claims against these defendants and he cannot now simply proceed against

them on claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative fact in a subsequent action. As

defendants argue, a dismissal under Fed. Civ. R. P. 12(b)(6) (when such a dismissal is made

without leave to amend) is a judgment on the merits to which the doctrine of res judicate applies. 

MTD, doc. # 22-1, p. 12, citing Fed. R. Civ. 41(b) ; Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 3

U.S. 394, 399 n. 3, 101 S. Ct. 2424 (1981). The undersigned finds that the motion to dismiss

defendants Miranda, Swingle in Nepomuceno from this action because the claims against them

are res judicata should be granted.

As to defendant Fox, plaintiff still proceeds against him, in Case No. CIV-S-09-

1300 CMK P, on the same allegations set forth within the instant complaint. Thus, to permit

plaintiff to proceed against this same defendant on duplicative claims within this case would not

be appropriate. Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 691 (9 Cir. 2007) th

(dismissal of a duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or enjoinment of

proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation’”

Case 2:09-cv-01301-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 8 of 9
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

9

[internal citations omitted]). 

Because the court has found that this action should be dismissed based on res

judicata as to several defendants and on the ground that it is duplicative as to the remaining

defendant, the court need not reach any other ground defendants have raised as a basis for

dismissal.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The request for joinder in the February 16, 2010, motion to dismiss, filed on

March 2, 2010 (docket # 25), by defendants Swingle and Nepomuceno, is granted; and

2. Defendants February 16, 2010 (docket # 23), request for judicial notice of

Coat[]s v. Fox, Case No. CIV-S-09-1300 CMK P, is granted. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ February 16, 2010 (docket # 22) motion to dismiss be granted as

to defendants Swingle, Nepumuceno and Miranda under the doctrine of res judicata;

2. Furthermore, the action as to defendant Fox be dismissed on the ground that

this action as to him is duplicative, and this case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 07/29/10 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009 - coat1301.mtd

Case 2:09-cv-01301-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 9 of 9