(PC) Mazzei v. Mba

Opinion

PAUL MAZZEI, Case No. 1:24-cv-00398-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED v. AS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA

MBA, et al., (ECF NO. 1)

Defendants. THIRTY DAY DEADLINE Plaintiff Paul Mazzei is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on April 4, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that defendants, a physician’s assistant Sisodia and a registered nurse Mba, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, resulting in a lung collapse and impaired cardiopulmonary function. (ECF No. 1 at 3, 12). In the complaint, Plaintiff states that he brought a case in state court based on the same allegations and against the same defendants (ECF No. 1 at 12–13), that he lost at summary judgement (id. at 14, 18–21), and then appealed, unsuccessfully (id. at 13, 24–26). In fact, Plaintiff discusses his state lawsuit in great detail, asking the Court to find that the state court judge’s decision to deny him appointment of a medical expert was “clearly erroneous.” (Id. at 22, 24). Plaintiff also attaches the subsequent decisions of the California Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of California, dismissing his appeal as untimely and denying petition for review, respectively. (Id. at 33, 34). Thus, it appears from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint that Plaintiff has already received a court decision on the claim presented in his case and thus his case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as barred by res judicata. Alternatively, if Plaintiff believes that this case is barred by res judicata, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntarily dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Plaintiff must file a response within thirty days. If Plaintiff fails to file a response, this Court will recommend to an assigned district judge that this case be dismissed. Federal courts “give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments would be given in the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged.” Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Thus, this Court will apply California law to determine the preclusive effect of the state court judgment against Plaintiff. Moldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass’n v. City of San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362, 364 (9th Cir. 1993). Under California law, res judicata forecloses relitigation if “(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.” Pitzen v. Superior Court, 120 Cal. App. 4th 1374, 1381 (2004) (citation omitted); see also Victa v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 117, 120 (Ct. App. 1993) (res judicata “foreclose[s] relitigation of a cause of action or issue that was determined in a prior case, involving the same party or one in privity to it, and which ended in a final judgment on the merits”); McKinney v. Cty. of Santa Clara, 168 Cal. Rptr. 89, 92 (Ct. App. 1980) (res judicata “precludes parties and their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.”). Here, Plaintiff alleges that he brought a case in state court based on the same allegations, raising the same claim, and against the same defendants. (ECF No. 1 at 12–13). As to the first element, both in this suit and in the state lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference. (Id. at 3, 12).1 Thus, the claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding. As to the second element, Plaintiff lost at summary judgement. (Id. at 14, 18–21). He then appealed, unsuccessfully. (Id. at 13, 24–26). Therefore, the second element of res judicata—final decision on the merits—is satisfied. The third element is also satisfied, because both Sisodia and Mba were defendants in the state lawsuit. (Id. at 12). Thus, the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party to the prior proceeding. As all three elements appear to be satisfied, it appears that this case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. It appears from the face of the complaint that the claims in this case are barred by res judicata because Plaintiff previously brought a case based on identical allegations against the same defendants, litigated his case, and lost. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of this order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as barred by res judicata. Alternatively, if Plaintiff believes that this case is barred by res judicata, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntarily dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). \\\

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff also argued the Eighth Amendment claim in the Appellant’s Brief during his appeal to the California Court of Appeals. Mazzei v. CDCR, Mba, and Sisodia, et al., 2023 WL 8167197, at *2, *18 (No. F086410, Cal. App. 5 Dist. Nov. 1, 2023) (“Appellant Paul Mazzei is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant both state and federal statutes prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment dictated by the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”) If Plaintiff fails to file a response, this Court will recommend to an assigned district judge that this case be dismissed. IP IS SO ORDERED. > || Dated: _ April 11, 2024 [sf ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE