Neal v. Davis , 475 F. App'x 690 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    April 6, 2012
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    CHADWICK JASHAWN NEAL,
    Plaintiff–Appellant,
    v.                                                         No. 12-5005
    (D.C. No. 4:11-CV-00617-TCK-PJC)
    MEGAN C. DAVIS; RICK SILVER;                               (N.D. Okla.)
    JOHNNY JOHNSON; and STEVE
    JOHNSON,
    Defendants–Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    Before LUCERO, O’BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
    Chadwick Neal appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C § 1983 complaint.
    Exercising jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , we affirm.
    * The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to
    Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not
    binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
    collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments;
    nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th
    Cir. R. 32.1.
    I
    Neal, who appears pro se, is incarcerated at the Howard McLeod Correctional
    Facility in Atoka, Oklahoma. In May 2010, Neal filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in
    state court based on events that allegedly occurred while he was in custody at the county
    jail. Neal asserted that he sustained a serious eye injury during an assault by another
    inmate and that jail officials denied him adequate medical care. As a result, Neal alleges,
    he is now blind in his left eye.
    The state court dismissed Neal’s complaint on August 15, 2011. The court
    provided three reasons for doing so: First, the court concluded that Allen failed to “have
    summonses issued and served in a timely manner” without demonstrating “good cause
    for [his] failure.” Second, the court found that Allen “failed to state a claim” that was
    “plausible on its face” or rose “above a speculative level.” Finally, the court found that
    the defendants were “entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities.” In
    conclusion, however, the county court stated that it was granting the defendant’s motion
    to dismiss for “insufficient service of process,” for “failure to state a claim upon which
    relief could be granted,” and “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
    On October 6, 2011, Neal filed the present suit in federal district court against the
    same defendants based on the same events. The district court concluded that res judicata
    barred Neal’s claims and dismissed his suit. Neal now appeals.
    2
    II
    We review the lower court’s dismissal de novo and liberally construe Neal’s pro
    se filings. Martinez v. Garden, 
    430 F.3d 1302
    , 1303 (10th Cir. 2005). “Under res
    judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies
    from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Allen v.
    McCurry, 
    449 U.S. 90
    , 94 (1980). There is no question that Neal litigated the same
    issues against the same defendants in his state court suit that he now seeks to litigate in
    federal court. Instead, Neal argues that claim preclusion does not apply because the state
    court dismissed his prior action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
    Neal is correct that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by an
    Oklahoma state court does not have claim preclusive effect in a subsequent federal case.
    Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Scott, 
    15 P.3d 1244
    , 1248 (Okla. Civ. App. Div. 2000); see also
    Brady v. UBS Fin. Servs., 
    538 F.3d 1319
    , 1327 (10th Cir. 2008). He is mistaken,
    however, in his assertion that the state court did not have jurisdiction to decide his § 1983
    claim. It is well established that state courts may decide federal civil rights suits brought
    under § 1983, see Strickland v. City of Albuquerque, 
    130 F.3d 1408
    , 1412 (10th Cir.
    1997), and we can discern no other reason why the state court would lack subject matter
    jurisdiction.
    Although its opinion is lacking in detail, we surmise that the state court
    erroneously assumed that qualified immunity, like sovereign immunity, is jurisdictional
    in nature. See FDIC. v. Meyer, 
    510 U.S. 471
    , 475 (1994). But qualified immunity is a
    3
    defense on the merits, not a jurisdictional bar. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 
    457 U.S. 800
    ,
    815 (1982). Accordingly, the state court dismissal order has preclusive effect whether it
    dismissed Neal’s complaint for failure to state a claim or on qualified immunity grounds.
    The federal district court was therefore correct to dismiss the present complaint as res
    judicata.
    III
    We AFFIRM. Appellant is reminded he must continue making partial payments
    until the filing fees are paid in full.
    Entered for the Court
    Carlos F. Lucero
    Circuit Judge
    4