UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ MICHAEL L. MACGOWAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. TOWN OF CAST LE ROCK; JASON GRAY, Mayor; TARA VARGISH, Director, Defendants - Appellees. No. 22-1061 (D.C. No. 1:21-CV -01246-RM-MEH) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before TYMKOVICH , PHILLIPS , and EID , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Plaintiff Michael L. Macgowan, Jr., pr oceeding pro se, sued the Town of Castle Rock, Colorado and two Castle Rock officials for alleged civil rights violations relating to the Town ’s denial of his application for a zoning variance. The district court dismissed the lawsuit and Mr. Macgowan has appealed. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1291, we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This or der and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### November 23, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 22-1061 Document: 010110773449 Date Filed: 11/23/2022 Page: 12 I. Background Mr. Macgowan seeks to erec t a digital billboard next to an interstate highway within the Town’s limits. In 2018 he applied for zoni ng variances to accommodate his plans. The Town deni ed his request under a provi sion of the Town’s code prohibiting off-premises advertising. Mr. Macgowan then sued the Town and its former mayor asserting violations of his ri ghts under the First, Fi fth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Macgowan v. Town of Castle Rock, Colo. , No. 1:19-cv-01831, 2020 WL 127978 (D. Colo. Jan. 10, 2020). In February 2021, Mr. Macgowan agai n requested a variance for his proposed digital billboard, which the Town denied on the same grounds as his previous request. He then sued the Town again for violations of his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In additi on to the Town, Mr. Macgowan sued the current mayor of Castle Rock and the Town’s building director. The defendants moved to dismiss under Ru le 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They asserted, among ot her things, that the doctrine of claim preclusion prevented Mr. Macgowan from litig ating the same constitutional claims that had previously been dismissed. Th e magistrate judge ag reed and recommended dismissal, and the district court upheld that recomme ndation over Mr. Macgowan’s objection. This appeal followed. Appellate Case: 22-1061 Document: 010110773449 Date Filed: 11/23/2022 Page: 23 II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. Smith v. United States , 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). We accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. “The court’s function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potentia l evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the pl aintiff’s complaint alone is legally sufficient to stat e a claim for which relief may be granted.” Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind , 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Ci r. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1
B. Claim Preclusion The district court dismissed Mr. Macgowan’s lawsuit under the claim preclusion doctrine, which “p revent[s] a party from litiga ting a legal claim that was or could have been the subject of a previously issued final judgment.” Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp . v. Medtronic, Inc. , 847 F.3d 1221, 1239 (10th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The elements of claim preclusion are: “(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier action; (2) iden tity of parties or privies in the two suits; a nd (3) identity of the cause of action in both suits.” Id. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

1 Because Mr. Macgowan proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his filings, but we do not assume the role of advocate. Yang v. Archuleta , 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Appellate Case: 22-1061 Document: 010110773449 Date Filed: 11/23/2022 Page: 34 We agree with the district court that the circumstance s of this case satisfy all three elements of claim preclusion. Indeed , with respect to th e first two elements, Mr. Macgowan makes no attempt to disput e that there was a final judgment on the previous claim and that the defendants are e ither identical to or in privity with the defendants in the prior case. As to the third element, Mr. Macgow an appears to argue that there is no identity of the cause of action in both lawsuits. We have adopted the “transactional approach” to defining a “cause of action.” Nwosun v. Gen. Mills Rests., Inc. , 124 F.3d 1255, 1257 (10th Ci r. 1997). “Under this a pproach, a cause of action includes all claims or legal th eories of recovery that aris e from the same transaction, event, or occurrence. All claims arising out of the transaction must therefore be presented in one suit or be barre d from subsequent litigation.” Id. What constitutes “the same transaction” must be “determi ned pragmatically, giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are rela ted in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage.” Hatch v. Boulder Town Council , 471 F.3d 1142, 1149 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We are satisfied that the instant lawsuit involves the same causes of action as his previously dismissed lawsuit. In ea ch case, Mr. Macgowan submitted essentially the identical request to th e Town concerning his propos ed digital billboard and received the identical respons e. In both lawsuits, he ra ised claims under the First, Appellate Case: 22-1061 Document: 010110773449 Date Filed: 11/23/2022 Page: 45 Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to cha llenge the Town’s denial of his request. Mr. Macgowan argues that his second lawsuit is not the same cause of action because he identified a specific Town ordinance that he had not iden tified in the first lawsuit. But a more specific citation of authority in support of the same cl aims is insufficient to avoid claim preclusion.
III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court.

Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 22-1061 Document: 010110773449 Date Filed: 11/23/2022 Page: 5