2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-6-2010 

# E nrico C i arro cchi v

. K e nnedy M e mori al H o spit al P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3718

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " E nr ic o C i arr oc chi v

. Ke nne dy M e mor i al H osp it al " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1380. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1380NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3718

___________ E N R IC O J. C IA R R O C C H I, A ppel l ant

v . K E N N E D Y M E M O R IA L H O S P IT A L ; JO S E P H R O D I; DE BO RA H R I GGS ; M I CH AE L CI AR RO CC HI

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 1: 09- cv- 04468) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay4, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay6, 2010

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

E n ri co C iarrocc h i, p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers di s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai ntand deny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. Forthe r eas ons t hat f o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m.2 I. B e c a u se th e b a c k g ro u n d o f th is c a se is f

a m ili a r to th e p a rties , w e d isc u ss it o n ly b ri e f

ly h e re . In J u n e 2 0 0 8 , C ia rr o c c h i f ile d a c o m p la in t p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 in the D istri ct C o u rtag ains t K en n ed yM em o ri al H o sp it al (“K en n ed yM em o ri al”), D e b o ra h R ig g s (h is e x -w if e ), M ich a e l C iar ro c c h i (h is b ro th e r), a n d Jo se p h R o d i (h is un cl e). H e cl ai m ed thatt he d efen dan t s had v i olat ed h i s “const i tuti on al and ci vil ri gh t s” byhavi ng hi m i nvol unt ar i l yhos pi t al i zed a tK ennedyM emori al i n t he mi d- 1990s . R odi m oved t o di s m i s s t he compl ai nt , and both K ennedyM emori al and R i ggs l at erm oved for su m m a ryju d g m e n t.

In Feb ruary20 09 , t he D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed eac h o f t hese m oti on s, d ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t as to C iar ro c c h i’s b ro th e r (w h o h a d y e t to e n ter a n a p p e a ra n c e in t he ca s e) , and cl os ed the ca s e. I n doi ng s o, the courtconcl uded thatr es j udi cat a barr ed C ia rr o c c h i’ s c a s e b e c a u s e a N e w J e rs e ys ta te c o u rt h a d p re v io u s ly ad ju d ic a te d h is c la im s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfur t herhel d t hathi s cl ai m s w er e al s o barr ed bythe s t atut e of li m it ati o n s. C iarrocc h i sub seq u en tl yfil ed a m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n , w h ich th e c o u rt deni ed. H e di d notappea l fr om anyj udgm enti n t hatcas e.

I n A ugus t2009, C i arr occhi fi l ed a s econd §1983 c om pl ai nti n t he D i s t r i ct C our t , r ai s i ng t he s ame cl ai m s agai ns tthe s ame defenda nt s . O n Sept ember3, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our t , act i ng s ua s pont e, ent er ed an or derdi s m i s s i ng thi s s econd c om pl ai nt . T he cour t , l i ke bef

or e, concl uded thatr es j udi cat a and the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons barr edW e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 1 3 C i arr occh i ’s cl ai m s. T he co urtfurther hel d thatdis m i ssal w as al so w arr anted becau se n o n e o f th e d e f e n d a n ts a p p e a re d to b e “ sta te a c to rs” u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . F in a lly , the c o u rt, not i ng t hatC i arr occhi had fi l ed “numer ous ot hercas es i n t hi s D i s t r i ct , m anyof w hi ch have be en di s m i s s ed on the C our t ’ s s ua s pont e r evi ew , ” ( D i s t . C t . M em. of Sept . 3, 2009, at2-3 n.2) , ordered t hat “i f [C i arr occh i ] att em pts t o rel i t i gate these sam e cl ai m s agai nst t hes e s ame defenda nt s fora thi r d t i m e, the C our tw i l l be obl i gat ed t o enj oi n [hi m ] fr om fi l i ng anycl ai m s i n t hi s D i s t r i ctw i t houtperm i s s i on of the C our t . ” ( I d. at4. ) C i arr occhi s ubs equent l yfi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed i n an or derent er ed on Sept ember11, 2009. H e now appea l s fr om both t hator derand the co u rt ’s S ep tem b er 3 , 2 0 0 9 o rde r. 1 II.

T he t erm “r es j udi cat a” e ncompass es the conc ept s of both i s s ue pr ecl us i on a n d c la im p re c lu s io n . V e n u to v . W itc o C o rp ., 1 1 7 F .3 d 7 5 4 , 7 5 8 n .5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). I s s ue pr ecl us i on, w hi ch i s r el evanther e, “pr event s part i es fr om r el i t i gat i ng an i s s ue that h as a lr ea d yb ee n ac tuallyli ti g ated . ” P eloro v . U n it ed S tat es, 48 8 F . 3 d 1 6 3 , 1 7 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . I s s u e p r e c l u s i o n a p p l i e s wh e n : “ ‘ ( 1 ) th e i s s u e s o u g h tt o b e p r e c l u d e d [ i s ] th e s a me as that i nv olved i n the pri or act i on ; (2) that i ssue [w as] actuall yl i t i gated; (3) i t[w as] det erm i ned bya fi nal and val i d j udgm ent ; and ( 4) the det erm i nat i on [w as ] es s ent i al t o the p ri o r j u d g m e n t.’ ” Id . a t 1 7 5 (q u o tin g B u rl in g to n N . R .R . v . H yu n d a i M e rc h . M a ri n e C o .,B eca us e w e conc l ude thati s s ue pr ecl us i on bar s C i arr occhi ’ s i ns t ant 2 cl ai m s, w e need no tadd res s w hether§ 1 98 3 w as the p roper vehicl e for assert i ng tho se cl ai m s. 4 63 F. 3d 1227, 1231- 32 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ) . A l t hough a def endantgener al l ym us tr ai s e i s s ue pr ecl us i on as an af

fi r m at i ve def

ens e, s ee A r i zona v. C al i forni a, 530 U . S. 392, 412- 13 ( 2000) , “‘ i f a c our ti s on not i ce thati thas pr evi ous l ydeci ded the i s s ue pr es ent ed, the cour tm aydi s m i s s t he ac t i on su a sp o n te , even though the def ens e has notbeen r ai s ed. ’ ” I d. at412 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Si oux N at i on of I ndi ans , 448 U . S. 371, 432 ( 1980) (R eh n q u ist , J. , d issen ti n g )).

Iss u e p re c lu sio n c lea rlya p p lies h e re , as th e in sta n t co m p lain t so u g h t to r el i t i gat e the s ame cl ai m s t hatt he s ame D i s t r i ctC our thad r ej ect ed i n hi s ear l i erfede r al cas e. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n s ua s pont e di s m i s s i ng the i ns t ant compl ai ntordeny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. G i ven thatC i arr occhi has fi l ed 2 s ever al m er i t l es s act i ons i n fede r al cour tand has at t empt ed t o r ai s e the i ns t antcl ai m s on m ul t i pl e occ as i ons , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on t o w arn hi m that , i f he w e re to f ile th e sa m e su it ag a in , the c o u rt w o u ld re q u ire h im to o b tain its p e rm iss io n to f ile a n yf u tu re a c tio n s. W e m u st s tre ss , h o w e v e r, th a t if C iar ro c c h i d o e s a ttem p t to f ile t hi s s ame sui tagai n, t he D i s t r i ctC our tm us taff or d hi m an opportuni t yt o oppos e s uch an injun cti o n b ef

o re im p o sing it . S ee B row v . F arrell y , 9 9 4 F . 2 d 1 0 2 7 , 1 0 3 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).5 I n l i ghtof the for egoi ng, w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der s of S e p tem b e r 3 , 2 0 0 9 , an d S e p tem b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , res p e c tiv e ly . R o d i’s m o tio n f o r le a v e to f

ile a re sp o n siv e b rie f

b e y o n d th e tim e se t f

o rth in th e b rie f

in g sc h e d u le is d e n ied a s m o o t.