Background
Orlonzo Hedrington alleged that he was sexually assaulted during a stay at David Grant Medical Center, a Veterans Administration facility at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California. He filed an administrative tort claim with the VA, which was denied in February 2018.
In August 2018, Hedrington, through counsel, timely filed a Federal Tort Claims Act negligence action in the Eastern District of California (“Hedrington I”). But in January 2020, without his attorney’s knowledge, Hedrington also filed a pro se lawsuit in California Superior Court raising similar allegations (“Hedrington II”). After the United States removed Hedrington II to federal court and the cases were related before the same judge, the government won summary judgment in Hedrington II on the ground that it was filed outside the FTCA’s six-month statute of limitations.
Nine months later, the government moved to dismiss the timely-filed Hedrington I, arguing that the final judgment in the untimely Hedrington II barred Hedrington’s claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment for the United States on both claim preclusion and evidentiary grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit reversed. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Bennett held that, under the court’s binding precedent in Filice v. United States (1959), California’s claim preclusion law—rather than federal law—controls the preclusive effect of FTCA judgments. The FTCA directs courts to apply “the whole law of the State where the act or omission occurred,” and the Ninth Circuit in Filice interpreted this to include state claim preclusion rules. The panel found no intervening Supreme Court authority that was “clearly irreconcilable” with Filice under the Miller v. Gammie standard.
Applying California law, the court held that the Hedrington II dismissal—based on the statute of limitations—did not carry claim preclusive effect. California courts treat statute-of-limitations dismissals as “technical or procedural” terminations rather than merits adjudications, so they do not bar subsequent litigation.
The panel also concluded that, even if the Hedrington II judgment otherwise qualified for preclusive effect, California’s public policy exception would apply. Hedrington never had a meaningful opportunity to litigate the merits in Hedrington II—a case dismissed as untimely—and the district court’s use of that judgment to block his timely-filed first suit produced the kind of “manifest injustice” that California courts recognize as grounds to deny preclusive effect.
Key Takeaways
- In the Ninth Circuit, the claim preclusive effect of an FTCA judgment is governed by the law of the state where the tortious act occurred, following the 1959 Filice precedent.
- Under California law, a prior judgment based on the statute of limitations is not a merits adjudication and does not have claim preclusive effect.
- California recognizes a narrow public policy exception to claim preclusion where applying it would produce manifest injustice—particularly where the party never had a meaningful opportunity to litigate the merits.
- A timely-filed lawsuit cannot be barred by claim preclusion arising from a later-filed, untimely action—even when the untimely action reached judgment first.
- This ruling creates a circuit split with the Fifth Circuit, which applies federal claim preclusion principles to FTCA cases.
Why It Matters
This published opinion resolves a question with real practical consequences for anyone litigating against the federal government in California. By confirming that California’s relatively forgiving claim preclusion rules apply in FTCA cases, the Ninth Circuit ensures that plaintiffs cannot lose meritorious, timely-filed claims merely because a separate, procedurally defective lawsuit happened to reach judgment first. The ruling is especially significant for pro se plaintiffs and others who may inadvertently file duplicative actions.
For practitioners, the holding reinforces the importance of understanding which body of preclusion law applies in federal tort cases. The decision also highlights California’s public policy exception to claim preclusion—a seldom-invoked but powerful tool that can prevent unjust results when rigid application of preclusion doctrine would deny a party any opportunity to be heard on the merits.