Martinez v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections CA3

Filed 3/27/15 Martinez v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

MIGUEL MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C074106

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34201200124397CUWTGDS) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

Miguel Martinez appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his action against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for wrongful termination of employment based on racial discrimination. The trial court concluded Martinez’s claim was precluded by a prior lawsuit in which he challenged the same termination of employment. On appeal, Martinez contends this case raises a new claim of racial discrimination that has not been previously adjudicated and should proceed to trial. Martinez further argues claim preclusion should not apply because CDCR was “never solely or directly” sued in the prior case.

1

We conclude the primary rights doctrine precludes Martinez’s present action that focuses on the same alleged wrongful termination as in his prior case. Moreover, Martinez’s tort claims are barred by his failure to first overturn the adverse employment decision by the State Personnel Board. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment of dismissal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Martinez was terminated from employment as a correctional sergeant for inducing a former prison inmate to sign a false statement, inexcusable neglect of duty, dishonesty, discourteous treatment of the public, and failure of good behavior. Martinez appealed his dismissal to the State Personnel Board, which denied his appeal. In an effort to overturn the State Personnel Board’s decision, Martinez filed a petition for writ of mandate in Martinez v. State Personnel Board et al., Sacramento County Superior Court No. 34- 2010-80000531. The petition named CDCR as real party in interest. The petition asserted Martinez’s termination was “disparate treatment.” Specifically, the petition alleged the administrative law judge’s finding sustaining Martinez’s dismissal because of dishonesty “is disparate in view of the testimony of Correctional Officer Raqueal Mudrick, and Correctional Sergeant Gregory Knight. Both Witnesses received Notices of Adverse Action listing dishonesty as an allegation, however the Witnesses were not dismissed from State Service. Consequently, [Martinez]’s dismissal from State Service is disparate treatment.” The trial court denied the petition, finding that “not only did Martinez harm the public trust, he made himself vulnerable to possible extortion by an ex-inmate and cast a negative mark on all of his fellow officers. The potential embarrassment to CDCR is palpable. Martinez’ actions clearly caused discredit to his former employer. [¶] Further, because Martinez was a Correctional Sergeant,