ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Def.'s Mot. to Dism., Dckt. No. 12 at 1. For the reasons stated herein, the court recommends that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted and plaintiffs' claims be dismissed with prejudice.
In this action, plaintiffs Sergei and Elena Portnoy raise claims arising out of the adjudication of Elena Portnoy's immigration status. See generally Compl., Dckt. No. 1.
Plaintiffs have been litigating Elena Portnoy's immigration status since at least 2001.*fn1 Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and a writ of mandamus, for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment right to due process, plaintiffs' Fifteenth Amendment right to vote, plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unlawful deprivation of property and liberty, plaintiffs' rights to equal protection under the law, as well as claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Litigation has taken place in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,*fn2 as well as in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. In the Eastern District of California, plaintiffs' previous cases regarding Elena Portnoy's immigration status are: (1) Portnoy, et al. v. United States, et al., No. CIV S-05-649 DFL KJM, filed on April 4, 2005 and dismissed on September 26, 2006 (affirmed on appeal, 06-16956 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2007)); (2) Portnoy, et al. v. United States of America, et al., No. CIV S-08-1266 MCE GGH, filed on June 6, 2008 and dismissed on April 6, 2009 (affirmed on appeal, 10-16912 (9th Cir. June 30, 2009)); (3) Portnoy, et al. v. United States of America, et al., No. CIV S-09-1935 GEB DAD, filed July 16, 2009 and dismissed on August 6, 2009 (affirmed on appeal, 09-16727 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2009)); and (4) Portnoy, et al. v. United States of America, et al., No. CIV S-10-1680 FCD KJM, filed June 30, 2010 and dismissed July 6, 2010 (affirmed on appeal, 10-16912 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2010)).
In case No. CIV S-05-0649, plaintiffs' claims concerning Elena Portnoy's final removal order were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because all challenges to final orders of removal are to be filed in the United States Courts of Appeals. No. CIV-S-05-0649 DFL KJM, Dckt. No. 31, Aug. 10, 2006 F&Rs, at 1-2 (adopted in full on Sept. 26, 2006, Dckt. No. 32). Summary judgment was granted for defendants on plaintiffs' remaining claims in that action. Id. at 3. Claims challenging the denial of Sergei Portnoy's petition for immediate relative status for Elena Portnoy and the denial of Elena Portnoy's application to adjust status to lawful permanent resident were found to be barred under the principles of res judicata. Id. at 2. In addition, it was determined that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to the petition for immediate relative status and the application for adjustment of status. Id. Claims challenging the denial of plaintiff Elena Portnoy's application for naturalization were found to lack merit because a de novo review of the record revealed that plaintiff could not overcome her failure to establish the statutory prerequisite of being lawfully admitted to the United States as a permanent resident. Id. In the absence of a valid challenge to the denial of Elena Portnoy's application for naturalization, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on her Fifteenth Amendment claim of having been denied the right to vote in federal elections. Id. at 2-3. The district judge's order adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim contesting the final removal order, and granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims was affirmed on appeal on April 9, 2007.
In case No. CIV S-08-1266, the assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiffs' complaint was very similar to the complaint in their 2005 case. No. CIV S-08-1266 MCE GGH, Dckt. No. 5, Sept. 9, 2008 Order at 2-3. The magistrate judge explained the defects of the pleading in detail and granted plaintiffs "one opportunity to amend their complaint in order to state a cognizable claim against proper defendant(s) that has not previously been decided by this court." Id. at 5. Upon finding that plaintiffs' amended complaint contained allegations virtually identical to the allegations in their 2005 case, the magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed due to its duplicative nature. No. CIV S-08-1266 MCE GGH, Dckt. No. 7, Dec. 11, 2008 F&Rs at 1. The findings and recommendations were adopted in full by order filed April 6, 2009, and that order of dismissal was affirmed on appeal on June 30, 2009.
In case No. CIV S-09-1935, the assigned magistrate judge found plaintiffs' complaint again contained factual allegations identical to the allegations in their 2005 and 2008 cases, except for the additional allegation that plaintiff Elena Portnoy was arrested by defendants on July 10, 2009 and taken into custody. No. CIV S-09-1935 GEB DAD, Dckt. No. 15, July 27, 2009 F&Rs at 3. Plaintiffs asserted eleven claims for relief, ten of which were previously raised in plaintiffs' 2005 and 2008 cases. The ten claims challenged defendants' denial of plaintiff Sergei Portnoy's petition for immediate relative status for Elena Portnoy, defendants' denial of plaintiff Elena Portnoy's application for adjustment of status, and defendants' denial of plaintiff Elena Portnoy's application for naturalization. Id. Plaintiffs' eleventh claim was an assertion that plaintiff Elena Portnoy's arrest has deprived her of liberty in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The magistrate judge recommended that the duplicative action be dismissed with prejudice, as it was evident that plaintiffs could not overcome the district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to final orders of removal or the res judicata bar arising from plaintiffs' previous litigation. Id. The findings and recommendations were adopted in full on August 6, 2009, and that order of dismissal was affirmed on appeal on December 10, 2009.
In case No. CIV S-10-1680 (the "2010 case"), the assigned magistrate judge again found the action to be duplicative of the actions previously filed by plaintiffs. No. CIV S-10-1680 FCD KJM, Dckt. No. 4, July 7, 2010 F&Rs at 2. Plaintiffs' 2010 complaint alleged violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Fifth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, Article 9 of the Convention of the Right of the Child, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. No. CIV S-10-1680 FCD KJM, Dckt. No. 1. The magistrate judge found that, as in plaintiffs' prior actions filed in this district, it was evident plaintiffs could not plead an adequate basis for subject matter jurisdiction or overcome the bar of res judicata arising from plaintiffs' previous litigation, and therefore recommended that the action be dismissed with prejudice. No. CIV S-10-1680 FCD KJM, Dckt. No. 4. The findings and recommendations were adopted in full on August 6, 2009 and that order of dismissal was affirmed on appeal on November 2, 2010.
Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' current complaint, arguing that with the exception of plaintiffs' breach of duty and intentional misrepresentation claims, each of plaintiffs' claims is duplicative of claims they have raised in previous actions and are therefore barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Dckt. No. 12 at 4. Defendant further argues that plaintiffs' breach of duty and intentional misrepresentation claims are also barred by res judicata, as plaintiffs raised similar claims in their prior proceedings and could have raised the current claims in those actions. Id.
The undersigned agrees. All of the claims in plaintiffs' current complaint are precluded by the doctrine of res judicata as they have been raised, or could have been raised, in plaintiffs' prior federal actions and appeals.*fn3
Under res judicata, "a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action." Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131 (1979) (superseded by statute on other grounds) (quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979)). Res judicata prevents litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding. Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 378 (1940); 1B James W. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.405 (2d ed. 1974). "Res judicata is applicable whenever there is (1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties." Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Stratosphere Litig. L.L.C. v. Grand Casinos, Inc., 298 F.3d 1137, 1143 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002)).
A. Identity of Claims "Identity of claims exists when two suits arise from 'the same transactional nucleus of facts.'" Id. at 1078 (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001)). "The fact that res judicata depends on an 'identity of claims' does not mean that an imaginative attorney may avoid preclusion by attaching a different legal label to an issue that has, or could have, been litigated." Id. at 1077-78. "Newly articulated claims based on the same nucleus of facts may still be subject to a res judicata finding if the claims could have been brought in the earlier action." Id. It is immaterial whether the claims asserted subsequent to the judgment were actually pursued in the action that led to the judgment; rather, the relevant inquiry is whether they could have been brought. C.D. Anderson & Co. v. Lemos, 832 F.2d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish select claims in their instant complaint by construing the government's actions as a "breach of duty" or, alternatively, alleging the government made factual misrepresentations. See Dckt. No. 1, ¶¶ 12-17, 23-28, 32-35. Still, the relevant inquiry is whether plaintiffs' new claims arise out of the same "transactional nucleus of facts," Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc., 322 F.3d at 1077, and whether the claims could have been brought in prior litigation, C.D. Anderson, 832 F.2d at 1100. Here, the relevant "transactional nucleus of facts" governing the claims that could have been brought encompasses facts related to the denial of plaintiff Sergei Portnoy's I-130 alien relative ...