Malberg v. McCracken

Background

Martin Malberg, who represented himself, brought two actions against Superior Court Judges Joanne McCracken and Christine Garcia-Sen, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and the State of California. The lawsuits arose from a domestic-violence restraining order issued in California state court proceedings involving Malberg. The 03613 case alleged a violation of his Fifth Amendment due-process right to receive a charging document. The 03928 case alleged a violation of his Second Amendment rights.

Malberg sought several forms of relief, including an injunction affecting the state proceedings and restraining order, vacatur of state-court judgments and rulings, and damages in silver bullion and United States Gold Eagles. He also requested prison time and criminal referrals for the individual defendants.

Duplicative-action analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss both cases. The court first addressed whether the two cases were duplicative of an earlier related case filed by Malberg. Under Ninth Circuit standards, suits are duplicative when they arise from the same factual events and involve substantially overlapping evidence, rights, and interests. Courts may dismiss, stay, enjoin, or consolidate duplicative actions.

The court found that all three cases arose from the same restraining order and the State of California’s response to Malberg. The complaints named the same four defendants and contained nearly identical factual allegations. The court also found that the same evidence would be presented and that allowing the later cases to continue could impair the finality of the judgment in the earlier case. Although the cases invoked different constitutional rights, the court held that this difference did not permit separate lawsuits based on the same underlying dispute.

Effect of the earlier related case

The court reviewed its earlier dismissal of the related case. It had dismissed the claims against most defendants without leave to amend, while dismissing the claim against Attorney General Bonta with leave to amend for the limited purpose of pursuing a facial constitutional challenge to the California Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Malberg did not amend that complaint within the period allowed, and the court later entered judgment against him.

The court concluded that analyzing the two later cases in a consolidated action would produce the same result as its earlier analysis. It also concluded that allowing anything other than full dismissal without leave to amend would impair the finality of the earlier judgment.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the defendants’ motions to dismiss in Case Nos. 5:22-cv-03613-EJD and 5:22-cv-03928-EJD. Because both cases were duplicative of the earlier related case, the court DISMISSED both complaints WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The opinion’s ruling was based on duplicative litigation and finality; it did not decide the underlying Fifth Amendment or Second Amendment claims on their merits.