Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02141/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Davis
Appellee
Stanley Keithly
Appellee
Jerry Montoya
Appellant
THE CITY OF MORIARTY
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uflited Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

M.~Y 3 1990 

R.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JERRY MONTOYA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

THE CITY OF MORIARTY; JOHN DAVIS, ) 

individually and in his official ) 

capacity; STANLEY KEITHLY, ) 

individually and in his official ) 

capacity, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 89-2141 

(D.C. No. Civ 89-0135 JP) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Jerry Montoya appeals the dismissal of his case 

filed in federal district court against the City of Moriarty and 

two of its officers, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. S 1983. The 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2141 Document: 01019969790 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 1 
• 

\ 

district court ordered judgment for defendants on the basis that 

the doctrine of res judicata required dismissal because Montoya 

had filed a claim in state court in New Mexico making precisely 

the same claims. The state court had granted summary judgment in 

favor of the defendants before the present suit was filed. 

On appeal Montoya admits that the claim he makes in federal 

court under§ 1983 is the same as that asserted in the state 

court. But he argues that the doctrine of res judicata should not 

be applied because he has appealed the state court judgment and 

because the New Mexico appellate court has not yet ruled. He also 

asserts that the dismissal of his constitutional claim in state 

court was on a procedural ground, his failure to allege intent 

with sufficient specificity, and that he was not given an adequate 

opportunity to present his case in state court. 

We have no difficulty with the latter two claims. We have 

examined the state court's order of dismissal, filed January 24, 

1989, and it does not appear to be based on any procedural defect. 

The district court's dismissal was with prejudice and without 

granting plaintiff leave to amend. Therefore, the state decision 

must be regarded as being on the merits. As to the opportunity to 

present plaintiff's case, the defendants' motion for dismissal or 

summary judgment was made on December 5 and served on December 8, 

1988, and not decided until January 24, 1989. Plaintiff had made 

a motion on December 19, the first day of trial, for an extension 

of time in which to respond. The state district court apparently 

believed, as do we, that a plaintiff should be prepared by the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2141 Document: 01019969790 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 2 
• 

date the trial starts to defend the efficacy of his cause of 

action. 

The only issue that gives us pause is whether New Mexico 

would consider res judicata applicable to a final decision of the 

district court that conceivably might be reversed in a pending 

appeal. No New Mexico case has been cited to us, nor have we 

found any, that has directly resolved this question, and other 

courts are split on the issue. See Anno., 9 A.L.R.2d 984 (1950). 

The federal district court, in its June 2, 1989, Memorandum 

Opinion and Order of Dismissal, held that the New Mexico courts 

would treat the judgment as final for purposes of res judicata 

unless and until plaintiff is successful in obtaining a reversal 

by the appellate court. See Salas v. Bolagh, 106 N.M. 613, 615, 

747 P.2d 259, 261 (Ct. App. 1987). As applied to the situation 

before us, a plaintiff who has lost on the merits in state court 

attempting to start over in federal court while appealing the 

state court judgment, we think the district court was correct and 

we will not disturb its judgment. If plaintiff Montoya wins his 

appeal in state court he will have an opportunity to retry the 

cause on remand; the state court has authority to resolve 

plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

AFFIRMED. Mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2141 Document: 01019969790 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 3