[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14089

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-14130-DLG

SIEGFRIED G. CHRISTMAN,

PAMELA A. CHRISTMAN,

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA,

a municipal corporation, 

HONORABLE THOMAS J. WALSH, JR.,

KATHRYN NELSON, 

In their individual personal capacities, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 15, 2013)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-14089 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Appellants Siegfried Gilbert Christman and Pamela Ann Christman (“The 

Christmans”) appeal the dismissal of their pro se civil rights complaint alleging 

violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida state law. The district court dismissed 

the complaint on the basis of res judicata. On appeal, the Christmans argue that 

they stated a cognizable claim, with only a single reference to whether res judicata

was appropriate in the instant case. 

We review de novo the district court’s finding that res judicata bars an 

action. Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999). The 

doctrine of res judicata “bars the filing of claims which were raised or could have 

been raised in an earlier proceeding.” Id. Res judicata is founded on the principle 

that a prior “opportunity to litigate protects a party’s adversaries from the . . . 

vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters 

reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Res judicata bars a 

subsequent action when four requirements are met: (1) there must be a final 

judgment on the merits; (2) the decision must be rendered by a court of competent 

jurisdiction; (3) the parties must be identical in both suits; and (4) the same causes 

of action must be involved in both cases. Id.

Other circuits have held that the denial of leave to amend constitutes res 

judicata on the merits of the claims “which were the subject of the proposed 

Case: 12-14089 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

amended pleading.” King v. Hoover Group, Inc., 958 F.2d 219, 222-223 (8th Cir. 

1992); see also Hatch v. Trail King Indus., Inc., 699 F.3d 38, 45-46 (1st Cir. 2012) 

(adopting the same rule and listing other cases that have done so). For purposes of 

a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a claim against a defendant in his official capacity is 

the same as a claim against his employer. See McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., Ala., 

520 U.S. 781, 785 n. 2, 117 S.Ct 1734, 1737 n.2, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (stating that 

“a suit against a governmental officer in his official capacity is the same as a suit 

against the entity of which the officer is an agent.” (internal quotation marks and 

alterations omitted)); Welch v. Laney, 57 F.3d 1004, 1009 (11th Cir. 1995) (stating 

that “where a plaintiff brings an action against a public official in his official 

capacity, the suit is against the office that official represents, and not the official 

himself”).

With respect to the fourth factor, the principal test for determining whether 

the same cause of action is involved is “whether the actions arise out of the same 

nucleus of operative fact, or are based upon the same factual predicate.” Davila v. 

Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation

marks and alteration omitted). A “cause of action” includes not only the precise 

legal theory raised in the earlier case, but also “all legal theories and claims arising 

out of the same operative nucleus of fact.” Pleming v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 

142 F.3d 1354, 1356 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Case: 12-14089 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

The denial of leave to amend the Christmans’ prior complaint was an 

adjudication on the merits as to the proposed claims. King, 958 F.2d at 222-223. 

In addition, neither party challenges whether a court of competent jurisdiction 

entered the prior order. As to the fourth requirement, the same nucleus of 

operative fact was involved in the proposed amended complaint and the instant 

complaint, and both cases even involved the same claims. 

The only remaining requirement is identity of the parties. Judge Walsh and 

Judge Nelson were both named in the amended complaint that resulted in the 

merits determination, and are identical to the instant complaint. The county was 

named in the current suit, and its commissioner was named in the previous suit. 

While the Christmans briefly argued in the district court that the prior suit was 

against the county commissioner in his individual capacity, the pleadings of their 

prior complaint demonstrated otherwise. Their prior complaint did not allege that 

Dzadovsky engaged in any actions in his individual capacity, and he was only 

connected to the case because of his position as county commissioner. 

Accordingly, the Christmans sued Dzadovsky in his official capacity in the prior 

suit, which is the same as a suit against the County as a matter of law. Welch, 57 

F.3d at 1009. After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we 

conclude that the district court correctly applied res judicata to all defendants in 

the present suit. According, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.

Case: 12-14089 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14089 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 5 of 5