Opinion
112,175.
06-12-2015
Archie TENNANT, Appellant, v. Mark MILLER, Appellee.
Paul Hasty, Jr., of Hasty & Associates, LLC, of Overland Park, for appellant. Toby Crouse, of Foulston Siefkin LLP, of Overland Park, for appellee.
Paul Hasty, Jr., of Hasty & Associates, LLC, of Overland Park, for appellant.
Toby Crouse, of Foulston Siefkin LLP, of Overland Park, for appellee.
Before BUSER, P.J., STANDRIDGE, J., and HEBERT, S.J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Archie Tennant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendant Mark Miller. First, he argues the district court erred by finding that his claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Second, he asserts the district court improperly found that his petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because we find res judicata clearly applied to bar Tennant from relitigating his case in Kansas courts, this court need not consider whether the district court erred by finding that his petition also failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Facts
In March 2013, Tennant filed a lawsuit against Meade County Sheriff Mark Miller and Clark County Sheriff John Ketron in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. In Tennant's complaint, he alleged that he was denied Xanax and Oxycodone while incarcerated in the Meade County Jail and suffered a seizure and respiratory failure as a result. He alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights and his due process rights under the United States Constitution. He also asserted Kansas state law claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Miller and Ketron filed motions to dismiss, neither of which are included in the record on appeal in this case. See Tennant v. Miller, No. 13–2143–EFM, 2014 WL 289497 (D.Kan.2014) (unpublished opinion). The federal district court granted the motions and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety because Tennant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Although Tennant states in his brief that he appealed the federal district court's decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, there is nothing in the record showing that an appeal was filed. But after Tennant filed his brief with this court, the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the federal district court's decision in the case. Tennant v. Miller, 2014 WL 5509779, at *2 (10th Cir.2014) (unpublished opinion).
On March 3, 2014, Tennant filed a petition in Meade County District Court naming Miller as the only defendant. Just as in the previous federal case, Tennant asserted claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These claims were based on the same alleged denial of prescription medications that was the subject of his previous federal lawsuit. In response to Tennant's petition, Miller filed a motion seeking dismissal or summary judgment based on two alternative grounds. First, he argued the doctrine of res judicata entitled him to summary judgment on Tennant's claims. Second, he asserted that Tennant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court found that both grounds had merit. In a written decision, the court specifically found that summary judgment was appropriate because res judicata precluded Tennant from bringing his claims again in state court. The court alternatively found that Tennant failed to state a claim in his petition upon which relief could be granted.
Analysis
Whether a claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata is a question of law subject to unlimited review by this court. Kansas courts apply federal law when determining whether state law claims are precluded by a federal court decision. Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92, 106, 223 P.3d 786 (2010).
Under federal law, the doctrine of res judicata bars a party from relitigating a claim that was, or could have been, resolved by a previously issued final judgment. Res judicata applies to bar a claim if three elements are satisfied: “(1) There is a final judgment on the merits in an earlier action; (2) the same parties are involved in the two suits; and (3) there is the same cause of action in both suits.” 290 Kan. at 106.
Tennant argues that the district court erred when it found the doctrine of res judicata applied to his state law claims in this case. Specifically, he asserts there was no final judgment on the merits in the previous federal case. Both of the state law tort claims asserted in the federal case were dismissed because the federal district court ruled that Tennant's complaint failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted. Tennant argues that this was not an adjudication on the merits of his tort claims because the dismissal was based on a matter of federal procedure rather than a determination of the merits. Significantly, he cites no authority or support for this assertion.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) specifically states that any involuntary dismissal under the FRCP—with the exception of an involuntary dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party—is an adjudication on the merits. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). Further, the United States Supreme Court has explicitly found that a dismissal for failure to state a claim operates as a judgment on the merits. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981). Finally, although Tennant's federal case was pending review by the Tenth Circuit when the district court ruled, a pending appeal does not suspend the finality of the lower court's judgment for the purposes of res judicata. See Rhoten, 290 Kan. at 108.
Tennant does not argue that the district court erred in finding that this case involved the same parties as his previous federal case or that the same state law causes of action were asserted in both cases, so any challenges to those findings are deemed waived and abandoned. See Superior Boiler Works, Inc. v. Kimball, 292 Kan. 885, 889, 259 P.3d 676 (2011). Regardless, it is clear from the record on appeal that both Tennant and Miller were parties to the federal court action and that the same state law claims were alleged in both the federal court action and this case. Therefore, all three elements of the doctrine of res judicata were present and the district court properly applied it when granting summary judgment to Miller.
Affirmed.