Opinion
CASE NO. C18-1158JLR
09-17-2018
RICHARD M. MARTINDALE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
This matter comes before the court sua sponte. On August 7, 2018, Plaintiff Richard Martindale filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") against Defendant Target Corporation Management ("Target"). (Martindale IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 1).) Attached to Mr. Martindale's motion is the complaint. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1).) According to the complaint, Mr. Martindale and Plaintiff Michael Arron Savage (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek to re-open Martindale v. Target Southcenter Mgmt., No. C18-0805RSM. (See id at 5 ("I ask of favor . . . to continue this case C-18-805 RSM to settlements and or trial . . . .").) On July 13, 2018, the court dismissed case number C18-0805RSM because Mr. Martindale's claims were time-barred. (See C18-0805RSM 7/13/18 Order (Dkt. # 12) at 3.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), district courts have authority to review IFP complaints and must dismiss them "at any time" if it is determined that a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also id. § 1915A(b)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (clarifying that § 1915(e) applies to all IFP proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners).
The court finds that the present case is frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. "Res judicata is applicable whenever there is (1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties." Stratosphere Litig. L.L.C. v. Grand Casinos, Inc., 298 F.3d 1137, 1143 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001)). As applied to the present matter: (1) the claims here are identical to the ones raised in case number C18-0805RSM; (2) the court reached a final judgment on the merits in case number C18-0805RSM, see Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a dismissal on statute of // // // limitations grounds is, a judgment on the merits); and (3) there is privity between the parties in this case and case number C18-0805RSM.
Mr. Savage did not appear in the previous action. (See generally C18-0805RSM Dkt.) Mr. Savage has not pleaded any new claims in the present case. (See Compl.; Savage IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 7).) It appears that Mr. Savage is included as a plaintiff because he is Mr. Martindale's domestic partner. (See Compl. at 2.) For purposes of res judicata, "privity may exist if there is substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality of interest." See Tahoe-Sierra, 322 F.3d at 1081. Because Mr. Savage is Mr. Martindale's alleged domestic partner, who joined this case because of a potential marital community with Mr. Martindale, the court finds that there is privity between the parties in the present matter and case number C18-0805RSM.
Because Plaintiffs' action is barred on res judicata grounds, the court DISMISSES this case as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Evarts v. W. Metal Finishing Co., 253 F.2d 637, 639 n.1 (9th Cir. 1958) ("It is likewise true that a district court, acting sua sponte, may dismiss an action where the records of that court show that a previous action covering the same subject matter and parties had been dismissed."). Consequently, the court also DISMISSES as moot the two pending motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. ## 1, 7).
Dated this 17th day of September, 2018.
/s/_________
JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge