FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 17, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1135 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00017 -CV -RW S-1 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CIT Y O F CO NY ER S, CONYERS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et a l., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( June 17, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , P RY O R and F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Armstrongdoes not cha lleng e the pr ocedur al basis for the dismiss al on appe al. In any 1 event, we note that a district cour t m ay ex er cise its inhere nt authority under a number of circ umstances. See Mallard v. U.S. D ist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08, 109 S.Ct . 1814, 104 L .Ed.2d 318 (1989) ( noting that inher ent authority exis ts to dismiss a complaint as f rivolous and malicious reg ardle ss of the plaintiff’s f iling status). 2 Arthur O. Ar

m strong, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’ s order dism issin g as dupli cative his civil rights action, brought pu rsuant to 42 U. S. C. § 198 3. O n appeal, A rm strong argues that th e district court err ed in finding that

1 the ins tant l aw sui t w as barr ed by the doc tr ine of

r es j udi catabe ca

use he pr ev iou sly ha d f ile d asim ilar law sui t. I n th e fi rs t l aw sui t, dis tr ic t c ourt c as e num be r 02- 02 62 9, t he di st ric t co ur t g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e d efen da nt s, a decision th at this Court affirm ed on appeal, num ber 03-13509 . In his brief, A rm str ong cl ai m s th at

the doc tr ine of

r es j udi catadoe s no t a

ppl y be ca use “ the party wa s differe nt and there has been no final judgm ent on the m erits.” T his Co urt r ev ie w s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s le ga l de te rm ina tio n th at ac la im is barr ed by the doc tr ine of

r es j udi catade nov o. R ag sda le v. Ru bbe rm ai d, I nc . , 193 F.3 d 1 23 5, 1 23 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . The doctrine of res j udicata bars the filing of claim s which w ere raised in an earl ie r pr oc ee din g. I d. Ac la im is barr ed by the doc tr ine of

r es j udi cataif

a ll fo ur of the f oll ow ing e le m en ts are pr es en t: “ (1 ) the re is a fi na l j udgm en t onthe m er its ; (2 ) the de ci sio n w as r en de re d by ac ourt of

c om pe te nt j ur isd ic tio n; ( 3) the part ie s,3

or tho se in pr ivi ty

w iththe m , a re ide nti ca l i n bo th s uit s; and ( 4) the sam e ca use of ac tio n is inv olv ed

in both c as es . ” I d. I f a ca se a ri se s ou t of the sam e nuc le us o f ope rativ e fa ct , or

is ba se d up on the sam e fa ct ua l pr ed ic at e as af

orm er a ct ion , the two cas es are re al ly the same clai m or c au se of a ct io n fo r pu rp os es of r es jud ic at a. Se e id. a t 12 39. P ri vity

e xis ts whe re the nonparty ’ s in te re sts w er e ad equa te ly re pr es en te d by

the party in the or igi na l su it or

“ w he re aparty

to the or igi na l su it is so closely aligned to a non party ’ s interest as to be his virtual representative.” N . A . A . C. P. v. H unt , 891 F . 2d 1 555, 156 0- 61 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) ( int er na l qu ota tio n om itted). The district court cor

rectly determ ined that Arm strong’s newlaw suit was barr ed by the doc tr ine of

r es j udi cata . I t i s c le ar

that the f ir st, se co nd, a nd f

ourth elem ents are m et. De spite Arm strong’s contention to the contrary , it is clear that the re w as af

ina l j udgm en t onthe m er its that w as r en de re d by ac ourt of

c om pe te nt j urisdictio n. T he district court’ s decision was aff irm ed on appeal by

this Court. It is a lso c le ar

that the sa m e ca

use of a ct ionw as inv olv ed

in both c as es , be ca

use the ne wc as e ar ose out

of the sa m e nuc le us o f ope rativ e fa ct a s th e or igi na l a ct ion– a traff ic stop that occurred on July5, 2002, w here Arm strong received several ci ta ti on s an d wh ere h is da ug ht ers were t el ep ho ne d.4

T he onl y e le m en t r em ai nin g is the thi rd e le m en t, r equir ing that the part ie s, or those in privi ty

with them , be identical in bo th suit s. A rm strong claim s that res j udi catadoe s no t a

ppl y be ca use the part ie s to the c as es a re dif fe re nt. T o th e ex te nt that the parties differ, res j udicata still appli es because the parties in both cases are in privitywith one another. This is because the nonparties’ interests we re ad equa te ly

r ep re se nte d by

the part ie s inthe or igi na l su it. S ee N . A . A . C. P. , 891 F.2 d a t 1 56 0- 61 . Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d, an d u po n c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we f i n dn o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r . F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e a f

f i rm. AFFIRMED.