ALMEIDA v. DUCART (2019)

MEMORANDUM ** and ORDER

Carlos Almeida appeals the district court's denial of his Section 1983 complaint, which alleged that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by finding he was an in-prison gang member and incarcerating him for four years in a Security Housing Unit (“SHU”). The district court dismissed Almeida's complaint, finding it barred by claim preclusion because he had alleged the same claim in a state habeas petition, which the state court denied. All but one sentence of the state court's page-and-a-half order described a new pilot program in the prison that “provided for case-by-case consideration ․ of previously validated gang affiliates for release from SHU.” The one sentence addressing the merits of Almeida's due process claim stated: “In any event, Petitioner has not shown that his due process rights to consideration for release from SHU have been infringed.” On appeal, Almeida asserts that the state court's decision was a summary denial, and thus the district court erred in concluding it precluded his federal claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We review a district court's dismissal based on claim preclusion de novo. Furnace v. Giurbino, 838 F.3d 1019, 1023 n.1 (9th Cir. 2016). “California claim preclusion law governs whether, in light of his earlier state habeas petition, [Almeida's] § 1983 claims may be brought in federal court.” Id. at 1023. Under California law, “the summary denial of a habeas corpus petition does not establish law of the case and does not have a res judicata effect in future proceedings.” Gomez v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 293, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 808, 278 P.3d 1168, 1175 n.6 (2012). “By implication, then, reasoned denials of California habeas petitions ․ do have claim-preclusive effect.” Gonzales v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis omitted) (citing Gomez, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 808, 278 P.3d at 1175 n.6). In finding Almeida's claim precluded, the district court did not address whether the state court decision was “summary” or “reasoned,” stating only that “[t]he superior court considered the evidence and denied the petition in a final judgment on the merits.”

The state court's order was a summary denial. The court's description of the prison's new pilot program was irrelevant to the merits of Almeida's due process claim, and its single-sentence holding contained no explanation for the denial. See Kowis v. Howard, 3 Cal.4th 888, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 728, 838 P.2d 250, 253 (1992) (“A short statement or citation explaining the basis for the summary denial does not transform the denial into a decision of a cause entitled to law of the case effect.”); Frisk v. Superior Court, 200 Cal.App.4th 402, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 602, 612 (2011) (“Summary denials ․ come with little explanation, if any.”). Therefore, the state court's decision does not preclude Almeida from bringing his claim in federal court.¹

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this decision, we do not need to address Almeida's arguments regarding privity or leave to amend, and we grant Almeida's motion for judicial notice.