Orlonzo Hedrington v. United States

── Orlonzo Hedrington v. United States ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ORLONZO HEDRINGTON, No. 23-15191 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02333- and KJM-DB PETER L. FEAR, in his capacity as the Trustee of the Chapter 7 OPINION Bankruptcy Estate of Orlonzo Hedrington, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 27, 2025 San Francisco, California Filed May 22, 2026 2 HEDRINGTON V. USA Before: Michelle T. Friedland, Mark J. Bennett, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Bennett SUMMARY * Federal Tort Claims Act Reversing the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States in Orlonzo Hedrington’s suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging negligence (“Hedrington I”), the panel held that Hedrington I was not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. After timely filing suit in Hedrington I, Hedrington filed a second suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act raising similar factual allegations and negligence claims (“Hedrington II”). The district court dismissed Hedrington II as untimely. Based on the doctrine of claim preclusion, the district court concluded that Hedrington’s timely claim in Hedrington I was precluded by the final judgment in Hedrington II. The panel held that it was bound by Filice v. United States, 271 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1959), which held that the law of the State where the act or omission occurred controls the claim preclusive effect of a Federal Tort Claims Act judgment. Because Hedrington alleged that the tortious acts * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  HEDRINGTON V. USA 3 occurred in California, the panel applied California’s doctrine of claim preclusion. The Hedrington II judgment did not trigger California’s doctrine of claim preclusion because, under California law, a prior judgment of dismissal based on the statute of limitations lacks claim preclusive effect. In any event, the district court’s decision to apply claim preclusion based on the Hedrington II judgment— despite its knowledge of and jurisdiction over Hedrington I—resulted in manifest injustice sufficient to trigger the public policy exception under California law. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the United States in Hedrington I and remanded for further proceedings. The panel addressed additional issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. COUNSEL Orlonzo Hedrington, Pro Se, Fresno, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Joseph B. Frueh (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Michele Beckwith, Acting United States Attorney; Phillip A. Talbert, United States Attorney; Office of the United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Sacramento, California; for Defendant-Appellee. 4 HEDRINGTON V. USA OPINION BENNETT, Circuit Judge: Orlonzo Hedrington timely filed suit. He then sued again—but the second time, too late. In the second suit, the district court granted summary judgment against him on untimeliness grounds. Then, based on the doctrine of claim preclusion, 1 the district court concluded that his timely claim in the first suit was precluded by the final judgment in the second suit. Both times, Hedrington sue