Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00189/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JOSHUA DIMMING, a single man, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

PIMA COUNTY, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-189-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #23]. Plaintiff filed

his response [Doc. #25] and Defendants replied [Doc. #26].

Procedural Background

On April 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed his Complaint [Doc. #1] in the current cause of action.

Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint [Doc. #2] later the same day. On May 5, 2009,

Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #23]. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s

second cause of action, a state negligence claim. Amended Compl. at 6. Defendants assert

1) that Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim is barred by the statute of limitations; and 2) that

because Plaintiff brought the state negligence claim in Pima County Superior Court, and it

was dismissed because of his failure to comply with Arizona’s Notice of Claim Statute, this

Court should abstain from taking jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts that his state law negligence

Case 4:09-cv-00189-CKJ Document 27 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

claim was timely filed and argues that this Court must exercise its supplemental jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Plaintiff filed his state tort claim in Pima County Superior Court on December 8,

2008. On March 17, 2009, the superior court judge granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On March 25, 2009, Plaintiff appealed the superior court judgment. On October 27, 2009,

the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. On November 24, 2009,

Plaintiff filed a petition for review by the Arizona State Supreme Court, which is still

pending.

Analysis

The doctrine of res judicata, or “claim preclusion,” mandates that “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.” San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of

San Francisco, CA, 545 U.S. 323, 336 n.16, 125 S.Ct. 2491, 2500 n.16, 162 L.Ed.2d 315

(2005) (citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he final judgment puts an end to the cause of action,

which cannot again be brought in litigation between the parties upon any ground whatever.’”

Nevada v. U.S., 463 U.S. 110, 130, 103 S.Ct. 2906, 2918, 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983) (citations

omitted). 

It is well-settled law that “a federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same

preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the

judgment was rendered.” Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465

U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 896, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). Consistent with federal authority,

Arizona law mandates that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata will preclude a claim when a former

judgment on the merits was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the matter now

in issue between the same parties or their privities was, or might have been, determined in

the former action.” Hall v. Lalli, 194 Ariz. 54, 57, 977 P.2d 776, 779 (1999). Furthermore,

“[a] judgment of dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is the same as a judgment for defendant on the

Case 4:09-cv-00189-CKJ Document 27 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

merits, and, of course, is res judicata as to every matter litigated.” Roden v. Roden, 29 Ariz.

549, 553, 243 P. 413, 415 (1926).

Here, the Pima County Superior Court, a court of competent jurisdiction, issued a

judgment on the merits regarding Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim. The parties in the

state court cause of action are identical to the parties currently before this Court. As such,

Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and will be

dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #23] is GRANTED;

2. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and

3. Defendants are directed to Answer or file a responsive pleading as to Plaintiff’s

§ 1983 claims within forty (40) days from the date of this Order.

DATED this 29th day of January, 2010.

Case 4:09-cv-00189-CKJ Document 27 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 3