The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING FEDERAL CLAIMS BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, AS BARRED BY DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AND ACTION BE REMANDED TO KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (Doc. 1) FIFTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
Findings and Recommendations Following Screening
Plaintiff Jesus Galindo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at California Correctional Institution in Tehacahpi, filed suit on May 23, 2012, in Kern County Superior Court alleging claims for negligence under California law and violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendant Matthew Cate removed this action from Kern County Superior Court on October 1, 2012. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
II. Screening Requirement
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
III. Federal Claims Barred by Res Judicata
For the reasons which follow, the Court finds that Plaintiff's federal claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
A. Case Number 1:11-cv-00023-DLB, Galindo v. Cate
On January 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed case number 1:11-cv-00023-DLB, Galindo v. Cate, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.*fn1 Plaintiff sued Matthew Cate, Warden Gonzales, and prison dentists John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 for violating his rights with respect to his dental care.
Plaintiff alleged that he had excruciating pain in his tooth when he ate and drank. Defendant John Doe 1 identified the source of the problem on April 9, 2010, as a metal filling touching the nerve, but he failed to treat the problem other than telling Plaintiff to keep food on the left side of his mouth. Defendant John Doe 2 extracted the tooth on June 1, 2010, rather than providing Plaintiff with a root canal. Plaintiff also alleged a supervisory liability claim arising out of the policy restricting root canals.
Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim on June 22, 2011, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 19, 2011. On December 6, 2011, the action was dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983 and judgment was entered against Plaintiff.
B. Case Number 1:12-cv-01613-AWI-SKO, Galindo v. Cate
Plaintiff thereafter filed this action in Kern County Superior Court alleging that Defendants Cate, Gonzales, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 were negligent, in violation of California Government Code Section 844.6(d), and that they violated the Eighth Amendment of ...