Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Denial of DVRO Doesn’t Bar Firing Man Over Violent Conduct
Justices Say Doctrines of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel Are Inapplicable
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A family law court’s decision denying a request by a woman for an order to her boyfriend to stay away from her did not have a preclusive effect, so as to bar the state from firing the man from his post as a youth correctional officer, Div. Six of the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
Acting Presiding Justice Kenneth Yegan authored the opinion which affirms Ventura Superior Court Judge Benjamin F. Coats’s denial of a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus sought by Jonathan Egelston. The termination of employment by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) was based on Egelston having been found to have slapped, choked and spat at his then-live-in girlfriend, Jill Graves, on Nov. 17, 2021, after she balked at his command that she write out a description of her past sexual encounters.
He subsequently lied about the incident to sheriff’s deputies (who arrested him) and CDCR investigators. The day after the encounter with Graves, Egelston sent her 53 accusatory and angry text messages, none drawing a response, and placed 63 unanswered phone calls to her.
On May 18, 2022, a judge denied, without prejudice, a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) sought by Graves, as well as one requested by Egelston.
The correctional officer was served by the CDCR with a notice of adverse action (“NOAA”) dismissing him based on four violations of Government Code §19572: inexcusable neglect of duty, dishonesty, discourteous treatment (in text messages to Graves), and other failure of good behavior.
Affirmative Defenses
Although he raised no affirmative defenses before the State Personnel Board or in the trial court, Egelston asserted on appeal that the administrative action against him was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
That contention, Yegan said, is forfeited, not having been raised below, but, he continued, “[i]n any event, the claim lacks merit.” Referring to Graves as “J.G.,” although her identity is a matter of public record, he explained:
“Appellant fails to establish the essential elements of res judicata or collateral estoppel. The causes of action in the DVRO proceeding and the instant proceedings are plainly different. J.G.’s DVRO request sought redress for harm suffered by her personally, while the causes of action in the NOAA sought redress for harm to the public as a result of appellant’s violation of his duties as a civil service employee….
“It is also clear that the proceedings did not involve the same parties. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the fact that the Department may have been ‘notified’ of appellant’s arrest and the TRO issued against him does not place the Department in privity with J.G. for purposes of res judicata or collateral estoppel….The Department had no interest in J.G.’s DVRO proceeding and thus had no reason to expect to be bound by the outcome of that proceeding.” Yegan added that the “dismissal without prejudice” of Graves’s DVRO request “does not constitute a final decision on the merits,” meaning that the ruling has no preclusive effect.”
State’s Position
The Attorney General’s Office argued in its brief:
“This appeal involves a peace officer charged with rehabilitating youths who engaged in the very type of violent behavior he is supposed to be an example against….
“The testimony of Appellant’s girlfriend that Appellant had assaulted her by slapping and choking her was corroborated by her physical injuries and Appellant’s text messages the next day. Appellant’s phone call history and text messages also established that he had harassed her the next day.”
The state postulated:
“He never expressed any acknowledgment that he did anything wrong, meaning that if not dismissed, he would likely engage in similar conduct again.”
The case is Egelston v. State Personnel Board (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation), B337182.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company