Opinion
# 2019-032-003 Claim No. 131595 Motion No. M-92616 Motion No. M-92891
02-26-2019
JOSEPH JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Joseph Jackson, Pro Se Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
The claim is dismissed. Claimant is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from relitigating claims arising out of the same conduct that was the basis of a federal complaint that was dismissed on the merits, with prejudice.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-032-003 |
| Claimant(s): | JOSEPH JACKSON |
| Claimant short name: | JACKSON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 131595 |
| Motion number(s): | M-92616, M-92891 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | Joseph Jackson, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 26, 2019 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging a claim for wrongful confinement. Specifically, claimant alleges that, on November 9, 2012, John Colvin sentenced claimant to forty months in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) following a disciplinary hearing. Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim on three separate grounds: (1) claimant is precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel from reinstituting the instant claim; (2) the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b); and (3) the claim is untimely. Claimant moves for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants defendant's motion, denies claimant's motion, and dismisses the claim.
Defendant argues that the claim is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel because the cause of action was dismissed on May 15, 2018 in the Western District of New York after claimant filed a federal complaint regarding the incident that forms the basis of the instant claim. As pointed out by Honorable Alan C. Marin in a footnote to his decision in David v State of New York, UID No. 2015-016-022 (Ct Cl, Marin, J., May 13, 2015), collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) and res judicata (claim preclusion) often seem to overlap because foreclosing a particular issue may well foreclose the claim or suit as well, as set forth herein below.
"Collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity" (Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303 [2001]). "The doctrine of collateral estoppel is based on the notion that it is not fair to permit a party to relitigate an issue which has previously been decided against him in a proceeding in which he had a fair opportunity to fully litigate the point" (Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291 [1981]). In order for said doctrine to be invoked, two requirements must be met--there must be an identity of issue which has necessarily been decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and there must have been a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling (Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d at 303-304). The party seeking to apply collateral estoppel bears the burden "to demonstrate the identicality and decisiveness of the issue, while the burden rests upon the opponent to establish the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in a prior action or proceeding" (Ryan v N.Y. Telephone Co., 62 NY2d 494, 491 [1984] [citations omitted]). "[A]lthough the goal of collateral estoppel is conservation of resources . . . the essential prerequisite is fairness, so that 'it should not be rigidly or mechanically applied' " (Jeffreys v Griffin, 301 AD2d 232, 237 [1st Dept. 2002], affd 1 NY3d 34 [2003], quoting D'Arata v N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664 [1990] [internal citation omitted]). "It is well settled that collateral estoppel is 'applicable to give conclusive effect to the quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies . . . when rendered pursuant to the adjudicatory authority of an agency to decide cases brought before its tribunals employing procedures substantially similar to those used in a court of law" (Clauberg v State of New York, UID No. 2009-015-141 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Mar. 30, 2009], quoting Ryan v N.Y. Telephone Co., 62 NY2d at 499 [additional citation omitted]).
The doctrine of res judicata bars claims or issues that were actually litigated as well as those that could have been litigated in a prior proceeding (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 348 [1999]; Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 111 AD2d 17, 20-21 [1st Dept. 1985], affd 68 NY2d 702 [1986]). In O'Brien v City of Syracuse (54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]), the Court of Appeals stated that "once a claim is brought to final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or seeking a different remedy."
Here, the verified claim alleges that claimant was wrongfully confined as a result of a disciplinary hearing that took place on November 9, 2012. The Stipulation of Settlement and Discontinuance Pursuant to Rule 41 (A) ("Stipulation") filed in the Western District of New York on May 15, 2018 explicitly states that the action in the federal complaint "arise[s] from a Tier III hearing on November 9, 2012 conducted by Defendant Colvin" (Krenrich Aff., Ex. B, ¶ 1). The Stipulation further states that "the [claimant] hereby releases . . . the State of New York . . . from any and all claims, liabilities and causes of action arising out of the circumstances set forth in the complaint in the above-entitled action" (id., ¶ 3). The federal complaint was dismissed "on the merits, with prejudice" (id., WHEREAS clause). "[A] stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in Federal Court is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata" (LaVigna v Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 245 AD2d 75, 76 (1st Dept. 1997). Accordingly, the Court finds that claimant is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from asserting the instant claim (see Tafari v State of New York, UID No. 2012-030-543 [Ct Cl, Scuccimarra, J., July 3, 2012]), and the Court need not consider defendant's alternate grounds for dismissal.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss the claim (M-92616) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that claimant's motion for summary judgment (M-92891) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that claim number 131595 is DISMISSED.
February 26, 2019
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: 1. Verified Claim, filed on June 15, 2018. 2. Notice of Motion, dated July 25, 2018; and Affirmation in Support of Motion, affirmed by Michael T. Krenrich, AAG on July 24, 2018, with Exhibits A and B annexed thereto. 3. Answer to Defendant's Notice of Motion and Affidavit, filed on August 6, 2018, with attachments. 4. Motion for Summary Judgment, dated September 12, 2018, with Exhibits. 5. Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment, affirmed by Michael T. Krenrich, AAG on September 27, 2018, with Exhibit A annexed thereto. 6. Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment, affirmed by claimant on October 8, 2018, with Exhibits.