Opinion

(PC) Brown v. Katz

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Feb 2, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.8%

a court-approved settlement followed by a judgment 26 entered with prejudice has preclusive effect

How later courts described this case

  • a court-approved settlement followed by a judgment 26 entered with prejudice has preclusive effect

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, No. 2:21-cv-02288-EFB P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 D. KATZ,

15 Defendant.

16

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendant used excessive force against him on March 25, 2020 by

19 slamming his hand in the food port of his cell. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff raised the same claim

20 against defendant in Case No. 2:20-cv-02386-EFB (E.D. Cal.) (“Brown I”). Plaintiff dismissed

21 that case with prejudice on February 3, 2021 following an agreed-upon settlement. Brown I, ECF

22 No. 18. Accordingly, he is precluded from raising the claim again in this court. Semtek Int’l Inc.

23 v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505-06 (2001) (a voluntary dismissal with prejudice

24 bars further action on the same claim in the same court); Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg Ventures,

25 LLC, 923 F.3d 685, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2019) (a court-approved settlement followed by a judgment

26 entered with prejudice has preclusive effect).

27 /////

28 /////

] It is therefore ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a United States District

2 | Judge to this action; and it 1s further RECOMMENDED that the District Judge dismiss the instant

3 | case as barred by the dismissal, with prejudice, of Case No. 2:20-cv-02385-EFB.

4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

5 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days

6 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

7 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

8 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

9 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

10 | Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11 | Dated: February 2, 2022.

12

13 Vp ZZ,

4 EDMUND F.

15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.