Edward Furnace v. G. Giurbino, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17651

Background

Edward Furnace, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, was validated as a member of the Black Guerilla Family (BGF) based on items found in his cell and placed in the SHU; he alleges the validation was retaliatory for an earlier § 1983 suit and racially motivated.
Furnace exhausted prison appeals and filed state habeas petitions asserting lack of evidence, retaliation, racial discrimination, and federal constitutional violations; state courts denied relief, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support validation and rejecting his First Amendment claim.
Furnace then filed a federal § 1983 suit against several prison officials seeking declaratory relief, damages, release from SHU, and expungement of gang records.
The district court dismissed the § 1983 suit on California claim-preclusion grounds (res judicata), holding the federal suit challenged the same primary right already litigated in state habeas.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal under Full Faith and Credit (28 U.S.C. § 1738) applying California’s primary-right test, and declined to assess a PLRA strike against Furnace.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Furnace's § 1983 claims are barred by California claim preclusion	Furnace: his retaliation, First Amendment, and Equal Protection claims assert distinct primary rights from the due-process/sufficiency claim resolved in habeas	Defendants: state habeas adjudicated the same primary right (freedom from unlawful gang validation/SHU placement); claim preclusion bars relitigation	Held: Claims precluded — all asserted theories attack the same primary right (unlawful gang validation/SHU placement); dismissal affirmed
Whether the parties in the federal suit are the same (or in privity) as in state habeas for preclusion purposes	Furnace: some named defendants in federal suit differ from those in state habeas	Defendants: state habeas named the key prison officials (and others), and supervisory defendant is in privity; identity/privity requirement satisfied	Held: Identity/privity requirement met; preclusion applies
Whether Furnace may pursue § 1983 damages after losing habeas because habeas cannot award damages	Furnace: he could not obtain damages via habeas, so § 1983 is permissible now	Defendants: California primary-right doctrine bars serial suits raising alternative remedies that challenge the same injury; allowing § 1983 would create inconsistent judgments	Held: Availability of different remedies is irrelevant to primary-right analysis; serial § 1983 suit barred
Whether dismissal should count as a PLRA strike under § 1915(g)	Defendants: duplicative nature renders suit malicious and counts as a strike	Furnace: suit was brought in good faith and not malicious or frivolous	Held: Court declines to assess a strike now; skepticism expressed about branding repetitive filings as malicious without the usual PLRA procedural posture

Key Cases Cited

Gonzales v. California Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding § 1983 claims precluded where state habeas adjudicated same primary right of freedom from SHU placement)
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing California primary-right doctrine and limits on procedural/substantive splitting)
Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 51 P.3d 297 (Cal. 2002) (defining primary right as the indivisible right forming the basis of claim-preclusion analysis)
DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378 (Cal. 2015) (restating California elements for claim preclusion: same cause of action, same parties or privity, final judgment on merits)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 cannot be used to collaterally attack conviction or confinement absent favorable termination)
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas properly challenges fact or duration of confinement; damages are not available)
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (procedural guidance on PLRA strikes and assessment timing)