United States District Court, E.D. California
MACK A. McCALLUM, Plaintiff,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND ECF NO. 1
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Mack A. McCallum ("Plaintiff") filed the complaint in this action on March 6, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state any cognizable claims and should be dismissed without leave to amend.
District courts may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the Court gives notice of its intention to dismiss and afford plaintiffs an opportunity to at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 683 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981)). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, ' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id . (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are merely consistent with' a defendant's liability... stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id . (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Id . "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id . (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Plaintiff names the State of California as defendant in this action. Plaintiff contends that California's Megan's law violates his constitutional rights because it is an Ex Post Facto law. Plaintiff contends that he should no longer be subjected to the negative impact associated with his registration as a sex offender because his conviction was expunged pursuant to California Penal Code § 1203.4.
A. Res Judicata
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff's claim in this action is identical to the claim Plaintiff raised in Mack A. McCallum v. State of California, Case No. 1:14-cv-00284-LJO-SAB ("2014 Action"). Plaintiff filed the complaint in the 2014 Action on February 26, 2014 and the Court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim on March 28, 2014.
"The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action, ' and is central to the purpose for which civil courts have been established, the conclusive resolution of disputes within their jurisdiction.'" Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Schimmels, 127 F.3d 875, 881 (9th Cir. 1997)). "The elements necessary to establish res judicata are: (1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.'" Id. at 1052 (quoting Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Here, this action presents identical claims involving the same parties as Plaintiff's 2014 Action. See Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-1202 (9th Cir. 1982) (discussing factors court considers in determining identity of claims). There was a final judgment on the merits in the 2014 Action. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp., 297 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is a "judgment on the merits" to which res judicata applies). There was privity between the parties, as the parties in both ...