(PC) Edwards v. Swarthout

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN EDWARDS, No. 2:13-cv-02218-DJC-SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff proceeds in this matter as Successor in Interest for David E. Edwards, 18 who filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 23, 19 2013.1 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 25, 2024, the then-assigned Magistrate Judge filed Findings and 22 Recommendations herein which were served on all Parties and which contained 23 notice to all Parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to 24 be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 64.) Defendant filed timely Objections to the 25 Findings and Recommendations, and Plaintiff filed a Response. (ECF Nos. 65, 68.) 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 27 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully

28 1 Jonathan Edwards was substituted as Plaintiff in this action on March 4, 2024. (ECF No. 84.) 1 reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 3 In particular, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendant 4 forfeited his claim preclusion defense by failing to raise it in his pleadings. See 5 Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cnty., 69 F.3d 321, 328 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Claim 6 preclusion is an affirmative defense which may be deemed waived if not raised in the 7 pleadings.”). Further, even if Defendant had not waived that defense, claim 8 preclusion does not apply here because there is no privity between Defendant in this 9 matter, where he is sued in his individual capacity, and Defendant in the prior state 10 court matter, where he was sued in his official capacity. See Mir v. Kirchmeyer, No. 12- 11 CV-2340-GPC-DHB, 2016 WL 2745338, at *8 (S.D. Cal. May 11, 2016), aff’d sub nom. 12 Mir v. Levine, 745 F. App’x 726 (9th Cir. 2018) (“There is not privity, however, where 13 the parties in the two suits have not been sued in the same capacity because a 14 defendant in his official capacity does not represent the same legal right as he does in 15 an individual capacity.”); Lull v. Cnty. of Placer, No. 2:19-cv-02444-KJM-AC PS, 2020 16 WL 1853017, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 17 2020 WL 7023954 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2020) (“A government official in his official 18 capacity is not in privity with himself in his individual capacity for purposes of res 19 judicata.”). Finally, the Court agrees that Defendant is not entitled to qualified 20 immunity because, under the holdings in Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005), 21 Richardson v. Runnels, 594 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2010), and In re Marcellious Tucker, No. 22 FCR-233502 (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 13, 2009), Defendant was on clear notice that 23 implementing a race-based modified program based on an unsubstantiated belief of 24 a link between the race of the individuals who perpetrated the incidents at issue and 25 all inmates of that race violated the Fourteenth Amendment. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 64) are ADOPTED in full; 28 //// 1 2. Defendant's further grounds in support of summary judgment on 2 Plaintiff's remaining equal protection claim are DENIED; and 3 3. This case is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 4 pretrial proceedings. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | Dated: _June 2, 2025 “Dane A Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 pica -Edwards13ev2218.JO 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28