T he Hon. W i l l i am W S chwar z er , U ni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Judg e f ort he Nor t her n Di st r i ct of C al i f or ni a, * s i tti n g b yd e s i g n a ti o n .

NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 07a0373n .06 Fi led : Ju ne 1, 20 07 No . 06-2021 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT DE LOR ES EGG E R S O N , P e r s o nal Rep re sent ati v e of the Est ate o f Leon Dan dredg e, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t, v. UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Defendant -A ppel lee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURTF O R THE W ESTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: DAUGHT REY an d GIBB ONS, Circuit Jud ges, a nd SCHW ARZER, Distri ct * Judg e. PE R C U R IA M
. The pl ai nt i ff, D el ores Eg g ers on , ap pe al s from th e di s tr i ct court’s order g ra nti ng the g ov er nment’ s mot ion to dis mis s t hisacti on, brou g ht under the Fede ra l Tort Cl aims Act, 28 U .S.C . §§ 2671- 2680, for damag es ar is ing from t he fatal sh ooti ng of Leon D andredg e by

D eputy U nit ed St ates M arshal M ar k H ess ler
. Eg g e rso n v. U nited Sta tes of Am erica , No. 05-5 94, 2 006 W L 172 025 2 (W .D. Mich. Ju ne 2 2, 20 06) ( Egger son II ). The di str ict c our

t’ s d eci si on was based on i ts deter minat ion thatthe cur re nt acti on, fil ed a w e e kaft e r

th e di s mi s s a l o f Egger son v. Hessler

, No. 04-4 25, 200 5 W L 203 504 9 (W .D.No. 06-2021

Eggerson v. U

nites States

- 2 - Mich. Aug. 23, 2 005 ) ( Egger son I ), w as bar re d bycoll ateral est oppel
. Egger son I w as filed pursuantto Biven s v. Six Unkno wn Nam ed Agen ts of the Fede ral Burea u of Narcot ics , 403 U.S. 38 8 (197 1), and resulted in a ruling tha t Hessler’s use of dea dly force a ga in st Dan dredg e dur ing an a ttemptto ar re st him w as not unreason abl e under the c ircums tanc es outl ine d i n the di str ict c our t’ s o pin ion
. The cour

t’ s o rd er gran ting su mmary

j udg ment t o Hessler w as recen tly af f irmed by this court, base d on our det ermin ation tha t Hessler’s use of deadly forc e was jus ti fied as se lf-d efense and w as, therefore, re asona ble
. Egg erson v. Hessler , No. 05-2 333 , 200 7 W L 57 954 5 at *5 (6th Cir. Feb. 15, 200 7) ( Egger son III ). T he p laintif

f ’s appe al app ears to b e ba sed o n no thing mo re than mere sema ntics. She arg ues that th e f irs t s uitwas dis mis sed “b ecaus e the di str ict c our t found no cons ti tuti onal tort, but
. . . made no deter minat ion w it h respect t o neg li g ence, ” and t hat t he doct rine of

collateral est opp el is, therefore, ina ppli c a b le . But this con ten tion is in direct conf lict w ith the plaintif

f ’s co ncessio n in the district court, as ref lected in the district cou rt’s opi nio n, “ tha t unles s t he [d is tr ict] cour t c hang e[d] it s r uli ng i n [ Egger son I ], col lat eral esto ppe l bars her f rom relitigating the issue of h ow the sh oot ing occurred.” As the district cour t not ed, n o moti on to recons ide r the Egge rson I dec is ion was filed i n tha t c our t, and w e hav e sin ce approv ed i t. M oreov er , t he pl ain ti ff ’s cu rrent a ttemptto backtrack on h er conc ess ion – by

arg uin g , i n effect , t hat t he i ss ue i n Egger son I was “inten t” wh il e in Egger son II i t i s “ ne g l i g en c e” –o v er l oo k s t he fact t ha t bo th acti on s a re ba s ed o n th e s am e facts and t hat t he findi ng of re asona ble ness forec los es li abili ty under both theo ri es of re c o ve ry.No. 06-2021

Eggerson v. U

nites States

- 3 - In s hor t, w e f ind that the appeal in thi s cas e borders on the frivolo us and, g iv en th e full leg al anal y si s p ro v ide d by the dis tr ictc o urt i n Egger son II , we c oncl ude t hat a nother detai led di sc uss ion of the c ase is obv iou sly u n n e cessar y . W e the re fore AF FI RM the jud g ment of

the dis tr ict c our

t for the reason s g iv en i n i ts opi nio n and order i n Egger son II , dated June 22, 2 006.