BARROGA v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-23No. No. 19-17418

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's judgment dismissing Barroga's action on the basis of claim preclusion was affirmed, as was the court's designation of Barroga as a vexatious litigant and imposition of a pre-filing review order.

Lucio Barroga appealed a district court decision dismissing his federal lawsuit challenging his California Public Employees' Retirement System pension benefits. The district court had dismissed the case based on claim preclusion, finding that Barroga's claims were identical to those already decided in a prior state court or administrative proceeding that resulted in a final judgment. The court also designated Barroga as a vexatious litigant and imposed a pre-filing review requirement on any future lawsuits he might file.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit examined whether claim preclusion applied and whether the vexatious litigant designation was proper. The court explained that federal courts must apply state law rules regarding what effect a prior state court or administrative judgment has on subsequent litigation. After reviewing the record, the court found that all legal requirements for dismissal based on claim preclusion were satisfied and that the factors necessary to declare someone a vexatious litigant and impose filing restrictions were also met. Barroga's other contentions—that the judgment was void, that the court obstructed justice, and that the defendants' procedural request was untimely—were rejected as lacking merit.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether claim preclusion barred a federal pension benefits claim based on a prior state administrative or court proceeding
Whether the district court properly designated the appellant as a vexatious litigant and imposed pre-filing review restrictions
Application of California state law preclusion rules in federal court

Procedural posture

Barroga appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his federal pension benefits action on claim preclusion grounds and designating him as a vexatious litigant.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Lucio A. Barroga appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to pension benefits from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Barrogas action on the basis of claim preclusion because the action involved the same primary right raised in a prior administrative proceeding or state court case that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See San Diego Police Officers’ Assn v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal court must follow states preclusion rules to determine effect of a state court judgment; discussing elements of claim preclusion under California law); see also White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (under California law, a prior administrative decision is “binding in later civil actions to the same extent as a state court decision if the administrative proceeding possessed the requisite judicial character” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Barroga a vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against him because all of the requirements for entering a pre-filing review order were met. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for pre-filing review orders).

We reject as without merit Barrogas contentions that the judgment is void, the district court obstructed justice or otherwise acted improperly, and defendants request for extension of time to respond to the complaint was untimely.

Barrogas motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

AFFIRMED.