Balu v. Druckman

Background

The court had previously granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and entered judgment for them. That earlier order held that Balu’s claims were barred by res judicata, also called claim preclusion, and by the statute of limitations, which sets a deadline for filing claims. Balu timely filed a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure asking the court to alter or amend the judgment.

Rule 59(e) standard

The court explained that Rule 59(e) permits a motion to change a judgment within 28 days. Such relief may be appropriate if there is newly discovered evidence, clear error or a manifestly unjust decision, or an intervening change in controlling law. Balu did not argue that new evidence had emerged or that the law had changed during the month after the earlier order.

Malicious-prosecution claim

Balu argued that Ninth Circuit law before the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Thompson v. Clark prevented him from bringing his civil-rights malicious-prosecution claim earlier, so the claim should not be barred by claim preclusion or the statute of limitations.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that a civil-rights malicious-prosecution claim requires a favorable termination of the criminal case under Heck v. Humphrey. Although courts had disagreed about what counted as a favorable termination, the Ninth Circuit’s 2004 decision in Awabdy v. City of Adelanto allowed a similar claim after criminal charges were dismissed under California Penal Code section 1385. The court found that Balu’s case was similar: his remaining convictions were reversed after a writ of habeas corpus, and the district attorney then moved to dismiss the charges under section 1385. The superior court granted that motion on June 19, 2006.

The court therefore concluded that Balu could have brought the malicious-prosecution claim after that point and before the filing deadline expired. It also stated that, even if Awabdy had barred the claim earlier, the relevant bar had lifted by the Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision in Roberts v. City of Fairbanks, rather than by Thompson in 2022. The court acknowledged that its earlier order had not fully discussed Awabdy but concluded that its prior ruling was correct.

Other alleged errors

The court rejected Balu’s additional arguments. It found that the defendants had raised the issue of privity—the legal relationship that can allow claim preclusion to apply to parties connected to an earlier case—in their motions to dismiss. The court also found that arguments about service and whether defendants litigated in an official or personal capacity did not show clear error or manifest injustice.

The court rejected Balu’s argument that the earlier dismissal did not support claim preclusion because it was procedural. It stated that the earlier case had been dismissed for failure to state a claim and that the prior order treated that dismissal as being on the merits. The court also found that Balu’s argument about newly discovered harm from medication had already been addressed and did not overcome claim preclusion or the statute of limitations.

Finally, the court recognized that self-represented plaintiffs’ filings must be read liberally, but stated that this does not permit a court to supply missing elements of a claim. The court noted that it had previously provided Balu with legal resources and an extended deadline, but concluded that it could not disregard the claim-preclusion and limitations defenses.

Disposition

The court denied Balu’s motion to amend or alter the judgment. The opinion did not find clear error or manifest injustice and left the earlier judgment for the defendants in place.