A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is n o t b in d in g p re c e d e n t ex c e p t u n d e r th e d o c trin e s o f law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary22,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT YO RA M RA Z, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 5101 ( D . C. N o. 05 - CV - 43 3- P) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , LU CE RO , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pl ai nt i ff- appel l antY or am R az, appea r i ng pr o s e, appea l s t w o m i nut e or der s ent er ed bythe di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai ntagai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es underthe Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ct( FT C A ) , 28 U . S. C . § 1346( b) and §§ 2671- 2680. O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es under28 U . S. C . § 1291. B eca us e the d istric t co u rt fa iled to sta te th e re a so n (s) fo r its d ism iss a l o f p lain tiff ’s c o m p lain t,- 2-

w e vac at e the tw o m i nut e or der s di s m i s s i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s compl ai nt , R . , D ocs . 18 a n d 1 9 , an d re m a n d th is m a tter to th e d istric t co u rt w ith d ire c tio n s fo r th e c o u rt to e n ter a p ro p e r o rd e r se tti n g fo rth a sta tem e n t o f re a so n s to su p p o rt its d ism iss a l. I n i t s fi r s tm i nut e or der , the di s tr i ctcour ts t at ed thati tw as gr ant i ng the m o tio n to d ism iss th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t filed sh o rtlya f ter p lain tiff

filed h is c o m p la in t. Id. , D o c . 1 8 . T h e c o u rt d id n o t sta te th e re a so n (s) fo r its d ism iss a l, how ever , as the mi nut e or ders i m pl ys t at ed thatthe courtw as “gr ant i ng [4] M ot i on t o D i s m i s s [. ] ” Id. S u b se q u e n tly , the c o u rt e n ter e d a se p a ra te m in u te o rd e r t e rm in a tin g th e c a s e . Id. , D oc. 19. T hator deral s o fai l ed t o s t at e the re a s o n (s ) fo r t h e d is m is s a l. Id. In h is c o m p lain t in th is c a se , p lain tiff c laim s th a t h e su sta in e d p h y sic a l, emot i onal , and ec onom i c i nj ur i es w hen he a nd hi s vehi cl e w er e det ai ned for s ever al hour s byagent s of the Feder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on on O ct ober2, 2004 nearJ ay , O kl ahoma, and he i s s eeki ng t o r ecove rm oneydamages underthe F T C A . In its m o tio n to d ism iss a n d b rie f in su p p o rt, th e g o v e rn m e n t m o v e d to d is m is s p la in tiff ’s c la im s u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b )( 1 ) a n d 1 2 (b )( 6 ). Speci fi cal l y , the governm entadvanc ed fours epar at e gr ounds fordi s m i s s i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s compl ai nt : ( 1) r es j udi cat a/ cl ai m pr ecl us i on; ( 2) r es j udi cat a/ i s s ue p re c lu sio n ; (3 ) th e F T C A ’s s tatu to ryb a r p e rta in in g to c e rta in typ e s o f p ro p e rty d a m a g e c la im s , s ee 28 U . S. C . § 2680( c) ; and ( 4) the FT C A ’ s s t atut orybar p e rt a in in g to th e in te n tio n a l to rt s o f lib e l a n d s la n d e r, s ee 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 8 0 (h ).W e not e thatthe pr ovi s i ons of Fed. R . C i v. P. 52( c) , conce rni ng j udgm ent 1 o n p a rtial fin d in g s, h a v e n o b e a rin g o n th e iss u e s in th is a p p e a l.

- 3- W i th r egar d t o the fi r s tand s econd gr ounds , pl ai nt i ff pr evi ous l yfi l ed a s epar at e FT C A act i on agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof A r kans as . Pl ai nt i ff a l s o fi l ed a pr i oract i on i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof A r kans as fori nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tthe D i r ect orof the Feder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on, a n d th e inju n c tiv e re lief a c tio n w a s c o n so lid a ted w ith th e F T C A a c tio n fo r a ll p u rpo ses. F o ll o w ing a thre e-d ayb en ch tr ial in Ju ly2 0 0 5 , the A rka n sas c o u rt d is m is s e d a ll o f

th e c la im s th a t p la in tiff a s s e rt e d w ith p reju d ic e . See Raz v . Muel l er , 389 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1060, 1075- 80 ( W . D . A r k. 2005) . I n thi s cas e, t he U ni t ed St at es i s r el y i ng on the j udgm entand rul i ngs ent er ed i n the A r kans as a c tio n s to s u p p o rt its c la im a n d is s u e p re c lu s io n d e fe n s e s . Fed. R . C i v. P. 52( a) pr ovi des that“[f] i ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw ar e unnec es s aryon deci s i ons of m ot i ons underR ul e 12 or56 . . . exce ptas pr ovi ded i n s ubdi vi s i on ( c) of thi s rul e. ” A s a r es ul t , i n the s um m aryj udgm ent 1 c o n te x t, w e h a v e re c o g n iz e d th a t “ [ i] n g ra n tin g a s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n , a d istric t co u rt is n o t re q u ire d to e x p licitlyd e tail fin d in g s a n d c o n c lu sio n s to s uppor ti t s deci s i on, even though s uch mi ghtbe hel pful t o a r evi ew i ng cour t . ” R egalado v. C i t

y of C om m er ce Ci t

y, C ol o. , 2 0 F . 3 d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 8 n . 1 (10 th C ir . 1994) . W e have al s o r ecogni zed, how ever , t hat“i f the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s under l y i ng hol di ngs w oul d be otherw i s e ambi guous ori nas cert ai nabl e, t he r eas ons for- 4-

ent er i ng s um m aryj udgm ents houl d be s t at ed s om ew her e i n the r ecor d. ” Id. (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); s ee als o C ouveau v . A m . A i r l i nes , Inc. , 218 F. 3d 1078, 1081 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( “[T] hi s courthas hel d thatw hen mul t i pl e gr ounds ar e pr es ent ed bythe m ov ant and t he reasons fo r the d i stri ctcou rt ’s decis i on are nototherw i se clea r fro m the re co rd, i t m ayv ac ate a su m m aryjud g m en t and rem an d fo r a s ta te m e n t o f

re a s o n s .” ). W e b e liev e th is lo g ic a p p lies w ith e q u a l fo rc e in th e c o n tex t o f m o tio n s to d ism iss u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b ). S im p lyp u t, a d ism iss a l o rd e r “ th a t fa ils to di s cl os e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r eas ons runs contr aryt o the i nt er es tof j udi ci al effici encybycom pell i ng the ap pell at e cou rtt o scou r the record. . . . Ital so i ncr eas es the dange rthatl i t i gant s . . . w i l l per cei ve the j udi ci al pr oces s t o be arbi tr aryand ca pr i ci ous . ” C ouveau , 218 F. 3d at1081 ( ci t at i on and quot at i on o m itte d ). In th is ap p ea l, the g o v ern m en t defen d s the d istri ct co u rt ’s su m m ary dis m i ssal as fol l ow s: [ T] h e Un i t e d S t a t e s b r o u g h ti t s mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s p u r s u a n tt o F e d . R. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) and ( 6) . T he R ul e 12( b) ( 1) as pectof the mot i on deal tw i th the vi abi l i tyof s om e, butnotal l , of R az’ s cl ai m s underthe F T C A . T h e R u le 12 (b)(6 ) asp ec t of the m o ti o n related to all of R az ’s claim s u n d er p ri n ciples o f re s jud icata. B ec au se th e d istri ct co u rt d ism iss e d th e e n tire c a se , itc lea rlyre lied u p o n th e re s ju d ica ta pri ncipl es ci t ed b ythe U nit ed S t at es. A pl ee. B r . at22. T hi s r eas oni ng i s fl aw ed bec aus e i tover l ooks the fa ctthatthe governm entas s ert ed tw o s epar at e types of r es j udi cat a barr i er s t o defe at- 5-

p la in tiff ’s c u rr e n t c la im s , i . e. , cl ai m and i s s ue pr ecl us i on, and w e ca nnott el l fr om the d istri ct co u rt ’s su m m arym inu te ord ers w h ich b arrier th e c o u rtreli ed o n , o r, a lte rn a tiv e ly, w h e th e r t h e c o u rt re lie d o n b o th . See ParkLake Res. LLCv. U. S. D ep’ tof A gr i c. , 3 7 8 F .3 d 1 1 3 2 , 1 1 3 5 -3 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (s tatin g th a t “ [r ] es ju d ica ta d o c trin e e n c o m p a ss e s tw o d istin c t b a rrie rs to re p e a t li tig a tio n : cla im pr ecl us i on and i s s ue pr ecl us i on, ” and s et t i ng for th di ffe r entr equi r ement s of ea ch b arrier). T h u s, w h il e itap p ea rs th at claim p rec lusion m ayb ar a ll o f p lai n ti ff ’s curr entcl ai m s underthi s court ’ s “tr ans act i onal ” appr oach s i nce the A r kans as c o u rt a dju d ic a te d c la im s a ri s in g o u t o f th e tr a n s a c tio n a t is s u e in th is c a s e , s ee R az , 389 F. Supp. 2d at1075- 76, 1078- 79 ( s et t i ng for th concl us i ons of l aw and a d d r e s s i n g Ok l a h o ma l a w a n d i n c i d e n tth a to c c u rr e d o n Oc t o b e r2 , 2 0 0 4 ) , we d ec li n e to g u ess w h ethe r claim p rec lusion w as th e b asis fo r th e d istri ct co u rt ’s d ism issal ord er. T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s m i nut e or der s , R . , D ocs . 18 and 19, ar e V A C A T E D and thi s m att eri s R E M A N D E D t o the di s tr i ctcour tforfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t ent w i th thi s or derand j udgm ent . W e D E N Y : ( 1) pl ai nt i ff’ s r eques tforan or der di r ect i ng the H onor abl e J ames H . Payne, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe N or thern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma, t o r ecus e hi m s el f fr om thi s cas e; and (2 ) p la in tiff ’s re q u e s t th a t th is c o u rt re p ri m a n d J u d g e P a yn e . P u rs u a n t to F e d . R .- 6-

A pp. P. 39( a) ( 4) , w e D E N Y pl ai nt i ff’ s r eques tforan aw ar d of the cos t s he has in c u rr e d in p ro s e c u tin g th is a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge