Raymond Jackson, Sr. v. M. Osman
664 F. App'x 667
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jackson, a prisoner, sued Drs. Osman, Bick, and Aguilera alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment based on treatment that culminated in amputation of his nose.
- The district court dismissed claims against Drs. Bick and Aguilera for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and granted summary judgment to Dr. Osman.
- Defendants asked the Ninth Circuit to take judicial notice of records from Jackson’s prior state-court actions (Solano County and San Francisco County), which showed dismissal of the same defendants with prejudice.
- The Ninth Circuit granted judicial notice and considered whether res judicata (claim preclusion) barred Jackson’s federal suit, and alternatively whether Dr. Osman was deliberately indifferent.
- The court concluded the federal and state actions involved the same cause of action (same harm), the state dismissals with prejudice were final judgments on the merits, and Jackson was a party to the prior proceedings—satisfying California claim-preclusion elements.
- The court also held that, even absent res judicata, Jackson failed to show Dr. Osman acted with the subjective deliberate-indifference standard; at most negligence was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson’s federal claims are barred by res judicata | The federal suit proceeds despite prior state dismissals; claims should be heard | Prior state-court dismissals with prejudice on same underlying harm bar relitigation | Res judicata bars Jackson’s federal claims against Drs. Osman, Bick, Aguilera |
| Whether the federal and state actions involve the same cause of action | The causes differ because of different legal theories | Both suits arise from the same harm (medical treatment leading to amputation) | Same cause of action under California law (claim preclusion applies) |
| Whether dismissals with prejudice in state court are final judgments on the merits | Dismissal with prejudice should not necessarily preclude federal suit | Dismissal with prejudice is equivalent to a final judgment on the merits for res judicata | Dismissals with prejudice are final judgments for claim-preclusion purposes |
| Whether Dr. Osman acted with deliberate indifference | Osman’s medical choices caused serious harm and met the Eighth Amendment standard | Osman followed specialist recommendations; treatment responsiveness shows no subjective deliberate indifference | Even on the merits, Jackson failed to show subjective knowledge and conscious disregard; summary judgment for Osman proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1999) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
- Tyler v. Cisneros, 136 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. 1998) (same principle regarding affirmance on any supporting ground)
- Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 230 P.3d 342 (Cal. 2010) (California rule: claim preclusion when same cause of action, final judgment on the merits, and same parties)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge and conscious disregard of substantial risk)