## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 S T EV EN M ANN I NG, P laint if f-A ppell ant, C ross-A pp ellee, v.

U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, D efend a nt-A pp ellee, an d R OBERT B UCH AN a nd G ARY M IL LER, D efend a nts-A pp ellees, C ross-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 02 C372

—MatthewF. Kenn elly, Judg e.
A RGUED M AY 14, 2008

— D ECIDED O CT OB ER 6, 2008

Befo re B AUER, F L A U M a nd M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges .2 N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . I fa f ede r all aw e nf o r ce m en t office r com m i ts a t or t, the vi cti m has tw o dist i nct aven ue s of reli ef: he m ay p urs ue a cons titution al tort claim agains t th e ind ivi d ua l office r u nd er B ivens v. Six U n kno w n Nam ed Agents of Fe deral Bureau of Narcoti cs , 40 3 U
. S. 38 8, 9 1 S.Ct. 19 99, 29 L. Ed

. 2d 619 ( 1971 ) , o r he m ay pu rs ue a com m on l aw tor t cl ai m aga i nst the U ni ted S tat es pu rs uant to the Feder al Tort Clai m s A ct ( “FTCA ”), 28 U
. S. C. §§ 1346 , 26 71- 80. The l att erave nu e i s s ubj ect to an im p or ta n t c av ea t. U n d er 28 U .S.C . § 26 76 , a ju d gm en t in an FTCA act i on a cts as a c om ple te barto any acti on by the c l ai m ant, by r eas on o fthe sam e s ubj ect m att er, ag ai nst the e m plo yee o fthe go ver nm ent whose a ct o r om i ssi on g a v e r i s e t o th e c l a i m. St ev en M an n in g p u rs u ed bo th av e n u es of re lief in th is case . H i s B iven s c l a i ms a g a i ns t t wo F BI age nts s uc c e e de d, buthi s F TCA c l ai m a g ains t the U ni te d S ta te s f ai l ed. The dist ri ct c ourt, fi nd i ng tha t th e FTC A j ud gm ent b ar ap p lied , va c at ed M an n in g’s fav or ab le jud gm en t o n h is B i v ens c l a i ms. Man ninga pp e a l e d. Be c a us e we a g r e e that th e F TC A j ud gm ent b ar re d M anni ng’ s B iven s c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e a g e n t s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND S t e v e n M a nn i ng, a f o r merChi c a g o po l i c e o ffi c e r a nd F BI i nf o r m an t, was c o nv i ct ed o fk i dna ppi ngi n Mis so ur i a nd m ur deri n I l l i no i s. H e r ec ei ve d a l i fe se nt en ce f o r the ki dn apping charg e a nd a death se ntence f orthe m urder c h ar ge . B ot h co n vic tio n s w er e o ve rt u rn ed . Th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtrev er se d h is m u rd er co n vic tio n, Peop l ev.N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 3 M ann i ng, 18 2 I l l

. 2d 193, 69 5 N
. E.2 d 423, 23 0 Ill.D ec . 93 3 ( 19 9 8 ) , a nd the Ei g hth Ci r c ui t g r a nt e d hab e a s r e l i efo n th e k id n ap p in g c on vic tio n, M ann ing v . Bowers ox , 31 0 F.3 d 57 1 (8 th C ir. 20 02 ). M an n in g h a s n otbe en ret rie d in ei thercas e. M anni ng filed sui t a gai nst F BI age nts Ro ber t Buchan an d G ar y M iller, alle gin g th at t h eir c on d u c t in th e in ve st igat i on a nd pro secuti on o fthe M i sso uriand I l l i noi s ca ses viol ated his ri gh ts. H e sou gh t reli ef un d er B iven s an d the Ra c k e t e e r I nfl ue nc e d a nd Co r r up t Or g a ni z a t i o ns A ct ( “R I CO”) , 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 96 4( c)
. I n the s ame act i o n, he fi l ed sui t a gai nst t h e Un i ted S tat es und erthe FTCA f or co m m o n l aw t o r ts o fmal i ci o us pr o se cut i o n a nd int en ti onali nfl ictio n ofem oti onaldi str ess . Pri orto di sco ver y, Bu chan and M i l l erm ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm en t ba sed on ab solute an d /or qua li fi ed i m m un ity. T h e d istri ct cou rt d en ied th es e m ot ion s, an d w e a ffirm ed

. M a nn ing v. M iller, 35 5 F
. 3d 10 28 ( 7th Ci r . 2004). The c as e r etur ne d t o the d ist ric t c ou rtfor d isc ov er y a n d tria l. T h e t wo c l a i ms w e r e t r i e d t o g e th e r i n a c o mb i ne d, though bi furcat ed, tr ial. C l ai m s under the F TC A m ay not be t ri ed to a j ury, 28 U
. S. C. § 2402, so d i str i ct courtj ud ges often b i furcat e tr i al s where FTCA cl ai m s a re j oi ned w i th othe r cl ai m s. The di str i ct c ourti n thi s ca se f ol l owed that pro cedure: the cl ai m s a gai nst Buchan and M i l l er w er e t ri ed befo re a j ury, and the cl ai m s a gai nst the go ver nm ent were tr i ed si m ult aneously b ef or e the co urt. O n Jan u ar y 2 4, 20 05 , a ju ry fou n d for M an n in g on h is B i v e n s c l a i ms, a wa r di ngo v e r $ 6
. 5 mi l l i o n i n da mag es aga i nst the two ag ents. T h e j u ry m ade speci fi c fi nd i ngs4 N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427

In a n o d d tw ist

— u ltim ately w itho u t an y i m p act o n th is 1 case

— the c l er k a ppar en t l y di d notf ol l ow the c our t ’ s or der an d failed to en ter the jud g m en t on the ju ry ’ s ve rd ict un til af te rit en t e r e d th e jud g m en t on the F T C A claim

. W e sub sequ en tly granted the dist ri ctcourt le ave to c orrec t this cl eri cal err or, and the dist ri ctcourt ente red j ud gm ent on the j ury’ s verd ic t nun c pr o t unc to M arch 25, 2005. that one orbo th o fthe age nts f abr i cate d or c aused to be f abr i cate d cer tai n m ate ri alev i dence, and then co nceale d th i s an d o th ermate r ial m at te r s f r o m M anni nga nd the pros ecuto rs wh o hand l ed the case s. The ju ry f ound fo r the a gents o n the RI CO cl ai m s. O n Ma r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , Ma n n i n gmo v e d t o h a v e j u dgment enter ed on the j ury’ s ver dicti n the B iven s cl ai m s. M anni ng n ot ed in t h e m ot ion th at, eve n th ou gh th e F T C A cla im w as stillpen d ing before the cou rt, a si m ultan eou s ent ry ofj ud gm ents on the FTCA cl ai m and the Biven s c l a i ms m i ght t ri gge r the F TC A j ud gm ent b ar . Defendants di d not obj ect to th e m oti on. On M ar ch 25, 20 05, the dist ri ct cour t o rder ed the cl er k t o enterj u d gm ent in f avo r of M anni ng o n the B iven s cl ai m s. 1 On Septem ber26, 2006, the dist ri ct courtf ound in f avo r of the U nited States on M an nin g’s FT C A claim s. T he cou rt co nc l u d e d th a te x c l u d i n gth e e v i d e n c e f a b r i c a t e d b y the FBI age nts, probabl e cause sti l l exi ste d t o p ro secute M anni ng f orbo th the ki dn apping and the m urder, ther eby d efeating th e m ali cious p rosecu t ion clai m . Th e cou rt al so fou nd thatM anni ng f ai l ed to m eethi s bur den of persuas i on o n the i ntenti onal i nfl i cti on o fem oti onalN os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 5 dist re ss cl ai m . Fo l l owing this rul i ng, the age nts m ove d to va c at e th e j u d gm en t aga in st th em u n d er Fe d e r a l R u le o fCi vi l Pr o ce dur e 59 ( e) , c l ai m i ngtha t th e F TCA j udg m en t ba r c o m pel l ed va ca tu r o fthe pr i o r j udg m en t i n the B iven s c l a i ms . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d th e mo ti o n a nd va c at ed th e j u d gm en t aga in st B u c h an an d M iller . T h is t i mel y a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

II. A N A L Y S IS M a nn i nga r g ue s o n a pp e a l tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur ti mpr o per l y i nt er pr et ed § 26 76 t o nul l i fy the j ur y ’ s ve r di cto n the B iven s c laim

. The FBIag ents fi l ed a c ondit i onalcr oss ap p eal o fthe a dve r se j ur y v er di ct, a r g ui ngtha t, i n the ev e n t th a t we r e v e r s e d th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g o n t he j ud gm ent b ar, the age nts were enti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw , as wella s abso l ute o r quali fi ed i m m unity. W e r ev i ew qu es ti o ns o fl aw, s ucha s i ss ue s o fstatu tory in te rp re ta tio n, deno vo . Samuel C . Johns on 1988 Tr us tv. B a yfi eld C o un ty, Wis. , 520 F.3d 822 , 828 (7th C ir. 2008). Ou r i nquir y focuse s o n the FTCA ju d gm ent b ar, wh i ch provi des: The j ud g men t i n a n a c t i o n un de r s e c t i o n 1 3 4 6 ( b) o f thi s t i t l e s ha l l c o ns t i t ut e a c o mpl e t e b a r t o a nyact i on by th e clai m an t, by reason of th e sam e sub j ect m atter, aga i nst the em p loyee ofthe gov er nm ent whose a ct o r o mi s s i o n g a v e r i s e t o th e c l a i m. 28 U
. S. C
. § 2676
. M an nin g con ced es th at th e d istri ct cou rt e n t e r e d a “ j u d g me n t ” o n th e me r i t s o fhi s F T C A c l a i m. He a l s o do e s n o tdi s pu t e tha tthe F TC A a nd B iven s c l a i ms6 N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427

w er e “ ofthe sam e s ubj ect m att er, ” which co urts have re ad to m ean “ ar i si ng o ut o fthe sam e a cti ons, tr ansact i ons, oro ccurr ences. ” Se eEs t at eof Trentadueex re l
. Agui l arv. U nited Sta tes , 3 97F
. 3d 84 0, 8 58 ( 10th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( ci ting Se r r a v. Pic har do , 786 F.2d 237, 239-40 (6th C ir. 19 8 6 )). Rather, he a rgues that the j ud gm ent b arsho uld not apply to cl ai m s r ai sed i n the sam e acti on, and, al ter nati vel y, that the j ud gm ent b arsho uld notapplyr etr oac ti vel y t o null i fy a prev io us B iven s j ud gm ent. W e hav e had l i m i ted o ccasion to address the i nter pla y betw een the FT C A j ud gm en t bar an d clai m s un d er Bive ns . I n H o o sier B a nc o rp o

f Ind ia na , Inc. v. R a sm ussen , 90 F. 3d 180 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) , a c a s e r e l i e d u p o n b y b o th p ar t i e s , we det er m i ne d tha t § 26 76 a ppl i ed to b o thf av o r ab l e a nd unf av o r able j udg m en ts o n F TCA c l ai m s. F o l l o wi ngthe N i nth Ci r cui t’ s r at i o na l e i n Gash o v. U ni t e d S t at es , 3 9 F
. 3d 14 20 , 14 37( 9th Ci r . 1 99 4) , we o bs er ve d tha t “[ p] l ainti ff s conte m pla ti ng bo th a B iven s c laim a n d a n F T C A cla im w ill be e n c ou ra ge d to p u rs u e t h eir cla i m s c on c u rre n tly i n the sam e acti on, i nstea d o f i n separ ate act i ons. ” H o o sier B a nc o rp , 90 F.3d at 18 5 (i nt erna l qu otations om itted ). W e di d no t, i n thatc as e, e xpr es sl y a ddr es s ei th era r g um ent r ai sed byM anni ng her e.

A . A p p li cation of§ 2676 to Claim s in S am e S u it M anni ng ar gues the F TC A ju dgm ent b arsho uld not apply to cl ai m s br ought i n the sam e s uit, co ntending that nei ther the l anguage of the sta tute nor the c ongres si onal in te nt al l ows the c onst ructi on r el i ed upon by the di str i ctN os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 7

cour t, and that the c onst ructi on wo u ld co ntra dict Suprem e Cour t a nd o ur pre cedent. M an nin g fir st p oints to th e tex t of § 2676 , w hich bars o the r “ a c t i o ns , ” b utno tcl a i ms wi thin the s a me a c t i o n. By sta ti ng tha t “ [ t] he j ud gm ent i n an ac t i on u n d e r [ th e F T C A] shal l co nsti tute a co m ple te barto any ac t i on b y th e c l a i mant, ” M anni ng posi ts t h at § 2 676 bar s a l l o ther“a cti ons”

— i
. e . , o the r l a ws ui ts

— but no t cl ai m s wi th i n the sam e s uit
. W e decl i ne to acc ept the inte rpre tat i on o f§ 2676 offer ed by M anni ng. Court s m u st a p plya sta tute as w ri tte n w h en th e la n gu ag e i s p lain an d u n am b igu ou s. See D o dd v. U nited Sta tes , 545 U
. S. 35 3, 35 9, 12 5 S
. Ct. 24 78, 162 L.Ed. 2d 343 ( 2005 ) ( “[ W ] hen the sta tute’ s l anguage i s pl ai n, the sol e functi on o fthe cour ts

— at lea st w he re th e d isp o s iti on req uired by the text i s not ab su rd

— i s t o enf or ce i t accor ding to i ts ter m s. ” ( quoti ng Ha rtfo rd U nd erwri te rs Ins. Co
. v . Uni on Pl an t e rs Ba n k, N. A. , 53 0 U.S
. 1, 6, 120 S. Ct. 19 42, 14 7 L. Ed

. 2d 1 (2000) ) ( i nter nal quotat i on mar k s o mi t t e d) )
. S e c t i o n 2 6 7 6 p r o v i de s thatan F TC A j u d gm en t a c ts as a b ar to “a n y a c tio n .” U n d er th e p lain mea ningo ftha tt e r m, thi s mus tb e r e a d t o i nc l ud e c laim s b ro u g h t w ith in th e s am e a c tio n, as a cla im is ne cess aril y p art of an a ction. T hu s w he n th e d istri ct cou rt i n thi s case enter ed a j ud gm ent i n the FTCA cl ai m , that j udg m en t be ca m e a “j udg m en t i n a n a ct i o n un der ” th e FTCA wh i ch “co nsti tute[ d] a co m ple te barto any acti on by the c l ai m ant, ” a nd M anni ng’ s B iven s cl ai m s fel l under th e a m b it of “ an y a c tio n .” T h e c om m on u sa ge of th e t er m “a c tio n ” s u p p or ts th is re ading, as “act i on” i ncor pora tes al l el em ents ofa ci vi l sui t,8 N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 i ncl ud i ng the cl ai m s withi n t h at sui t. See Blac k’ s Law D ict ion ar y 31 (8 th ed . 200 4) (d efin in g “ ac tio n ” a s “ [a] c ivil orcr i m i nal j ud i ci alpro ceedi ng” a nd equating i t with “act i o n a tl a w, ” de fi ne d a s a “ [ a ] c i v i l s ui ts t a t i nga l ega l c au se of ac tio n a n d s ee kin g on ly a lega l rem ed y” ); G il le spie v. Eq u i fax In f or mat i on S e r vi c e s , L
. L
. C. , 48 4 F
. 3d 938, 94 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “W e fre quentl y l oo k t o d ict i onar i es to d eterm ine th e plain m ean ing of w ord s.”)
. M an nin g’s B iven s cl ai m s e xi ste d a s part of a “ ci vi l j ud i ci alpro ceedi ng” a tthe t i me tha tthe c o ur te nt e r e d j ud g men to n the F TC A cl ai m . By ac ti ng as a barto any ac ti o n, § 2 67 6 bar s th e cl ai m s withi n that acti on. Thi s r eadi ng o fthe m ea n i ng o f the t er m “a cti on” al so m akes se n se withi n the conte xt o f the e nti re st atute
. Though Congr ess co uld have bee n m or e expli ci t in i nd i cating the appli cati on o f§ 2676 to cl ai m s in the sam e s uit a s th e FTC A cl ai m , the choi ce o f b r o a d l a ngua ge

— “ a co m plete barto any ac ti o n”

— m ake s clea r th at the b arwas i ntended to apply to such cl ai m s. See Serra , 78 6 F
. 2d at 239. M an n in g’s in te rp re ta tio n of § 26 76 st ra in s t h e p lain langu age of the sta t u t e b y sug gesting that the term “a c tio n ” d oe s n otin c lu d e th e c laim s w ith in t h at ac tio n . A cl ai m i s a parto fthe bro ader ter m act ion, and w e do not s e e h o w the j ud g men tb a r c o ul d b e r e a d t o p r e c l ud e th e w h ol e whil e pr ese rv i ng i ts parts
. A n i nter preta ti on th a t§ 2 6 7 6 wa s i n t e n d e d t o b a r o n l y s ubs e q u e n tl a wsui ts by the s am e par ty ar i si ng o ut o fthe sa m e set of f acts does notfi nd adequate supp or t in the text. N o cour t has i nter prete d § 26 76 i n the m anner put f or th b y M an n in g; t o th e c on tr ar y, co u rt s h av e c on sis te n tlyN os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 9 f ound that a n FTCA j ud gm ent b ar s a B iven s cl ai m r ai sed in th e s am e s u it. See H a r r i s v. U nited Sta tes , 42 2 F
. 3d 322 ( 6th C ir. 20 05) ; E stat e of Trenta du e ex rel. A gu ila r v. U nited Sta tes , 397F.3d 84 0 (1 0t h C ir. 20 05 ); E ng l ev. M e cke, 24 F.3 d 13 3 (1 0t h C ir. 19 94 ); Are val o v. Woods , 811 F. 2d 487 ( 9th C ir. 19 87 ); Serra , 7 8 6 F
. 2 d a t2 4 1; see a lso C lifto n v . M iller, 13 9 F .3d 90 1 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ) (u n p u b l ish ed op in ion ); O rt iz v. Pe ars on , 88 F .Sup p. 2d 151, 16 7 ( S. D.N.Y. 20 00)
. Lik e th ese co urts , we fi nd that“ i t i s i nc o ns eque nt i altha t th e [ Bive ns a nd F TCA ] c l ai m s wer e tr ied to g ethe r i n the sam e s uit
. ” Serra , 78 6 F
. 2d at 241. M an ni n gc o mpl a i n s th a tt o h o l d th a tth e j u d g men t b ar a pp l i ed i n thi s ca se w oul d contr adic t o ur r uling in H o o sier B a nc o rp , wh er e, M anni ng ar gues, we i nstr ucted pl aint i ff s to br i ng bo th cl ai m s si m ul ta ne o us l y in the sa m e la w su it. M an n in g ov er st at es ou r d i r ec tiv e. In H o o sier B a nc o rp , w e e n c o u r a g e d p l a i n t i ff s wi t h c l a i ms un d er B iven s and the F TCA t o pur su e th o se c l ai m s co ncurr entl y i n the sam e sui t. 90 F. 3d at 185. W e nev erst ate d th a tp l a i n t i ff s w i th b o th c l a i ms mu s tp u r s u e bo t h c l a i ms to j ud gm ent in or der t o re cove r an y dam age s; m or e t o the poi nt, w e never sta ted that a pl ai nti ffco uld k eep bo th a B iven s and an FTCA j ud gm en t, orthatthe FTCA j ud gm en t bar w ou ld n ot ap p ly to action s su ch as this. Plaintiff s l i ke M anni ng wh o choos e to pu rs ue bo th av enues o fr el i ef m ust a ssum e th e r i sk that a B iven s j u d gm en t w ou ld be nul l i fi ed by § 2676
. W e wil lnotundo w hat a m ounts to the inevi tabl e r esul t o fa str ate gi c cho i ce b y M anni ng. M anni ng furtherar gues that thi s res ultei therf or ecl ose s B iven s or re n d er s itsu p er flu ou s. T h e Su p re m e C ou rtin10 N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 C a rlson v. G reen sta ted that i t i s “cr yst al cl earthatCongr ess v i e ws F TC A a nd B iven s as p arall e l, com p lem en tary causes o fact i on. ” 44 6 U .S. 1 4, 19

- 20, 10 0 S
. Ct. 14 68, 64 L. Ed. 2d 15 ( 19 80 )
. Re adingthe s ta tu te t o b ar cl ai m s i n the sam e s uitwould evi scer ate the B iven s acti on a gai nst pr o te ct i o n o fthe se c l ai m s i n Carl s on , a cc o r di ngt o M an ni ng. W e di sag re e. A pl ai nti ffm ay sti l l br i ng bo th paral l elcl ai m s a s r em edi es to tort s c om m i tte d by l aw en f o r ce m en t o ffi ce r s ag ains t th e g o ve r nm en t an d the i nd i vi du alo ffi cer s, and th e rem edi es com ple m ent e ach othe r. But the i dea thata pla i nti ffm ay b r i ng c l a i ms aga i nst b oth the g ove rnm ent a nd the federa l o ffi cerdoes not d ire ctl y i m pli cate wh ethero ne m ay pu rs ue tho se c laim s t o jud gm e n t
. B ot hrem ed ies rem ain as via b le ca us es o fa ct i o n, b utb ec au se o fthe b r o ad l an g ua g e o fthe j ud gm ent bar, pla i nti ff s m ust m ake str ate gi c choi ces i n pur su i ngthe r emedi es . W e do no t th i nki t unre as o nab l e to r equi r e a pl aint i fftha t m o ve d f o r j udg m en t o n a su c c es sfu l B iven s cl ai m to deci de w hether o r n ot i t m ake s s e ns e t o v o l un t a r i l y wi thd r a w a c o nt e mpo r a ne o us F TC A c laim

. Se e, e . g. , En gle, 2 4 F .3d at13 4; O rt iz , 88 F. Supp.2d a t 16 7. S ucha r equi r ementdo es no t r un a f o ulo f Carl s on or H o o sier B a nc o rp . M an n in g a lso relie s o n th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s r u lin g in Will v. Ha llo ck, 54 6 U.S
. 34 5, 12 6 S
. Ct. 95 2, 16 3 L. Ed

. 2d 836 ( 2006 ) , ar gui ng tha t the case su p p or ts hi s r eadi ng o f § 26 76 an d su per ce des al l o f th e ca se s ci te d abo ve . I n Wil l , the Cour t add re sse d w hethera dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on to re fuse t o apply the j ud gm ent b arof § 2676 was o pen to col l ate ra l appeal

. The Courtf ound th at a s tatutor y b ar to lit igat i on di d not nec ess ar i l y c onst i tute the k i nd o fN os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 11 i m m unity fro m sui t that j usti fi es an i nter loc utor y a pp eal u n d e r th e c o l l a t e r a l o r d e r d o c t r i n e . I n s o d o i ng , t he Court obs er ved t h at the F TC A j ud gm ent b arhad an “es senti alpro ceduralel em ent” w hic h s et i t a part f ro m ot h er f or m s o fi m m unity; nam el y, thatthe j ud gm ent b ar w ou ld n ot take effect un tilthe after th e d istri ct cou rt enter ed an F TC A j u d gm ent. Thi s e l em ent di sti ngui shed it fro m ot h er form s o f im m u n ity fr o m s u i t (su c h as qu alifi ed i m m uni ty ) , w hi cha r e ti m ely fr o m the mom en t th e com pla i nt i s s er ved , and ther ef or e warr ant co l l ate ra l r e v i e w. T he Co ur te xp l a i ne d: I fa Bive ns action a l o ne i s br o ug ht, the r e wi l l b e no po ss ibi l i tyo fa j udg m en t ba r, norw i l l the r e be s o l o ng as a B iven s a c t i o n a g a i n s to ffi c i a l s a n d a T o r tC l a i ms A ct a gai nst the Gove rnm ent a re pending si m ult ane o us l y ( as the y wer e f o r a t i m e he r e)
. I n the pr es en t case , i f [the p lai nt iff] had broug ht her Bivens acti on and no other, t h e a gents co uld notposs ibl y hav e i nvoke d the j ud gm ent b arin cla i m i ng a ri ght t o be fre e o f tria l. Id. at3 54, 1 26 S
. Ct. 9 52
. Thi s pr o ce dur ale l ementl i k en s th e § 26 76 ba r to r es j udi ca ta, th e Cou r t note d , whi ch, e xc epti n th e r a r e c a s e , d i d n o twa r r a n tc o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w. T h er efo re “[a ]lth ou gh th e s ta tu to ry j u d g m en t b ar is ar g uab l y b r o a de r tha n t r a di t i o na l r e s j ud i c a t a , ” l i k e r es j ud i cata, the sta tute does not “ prot ect val ues s o gr eatthat onl y i m m edi ate ap peal can effecti vel y vi nd i cate them

. ” Id. at 354- 55, 12 6 S
. Ct. 95 2. M anni ng fi rs t e xtra pol ate s fro m thi s a nal ysi s that Co n gr ess i ncor pora ted pri nci ple s o fr es j ud i cata i nto12 N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 § 2 676, wh i ch, acc or ding to M an ni ng, would i nd i cate an in te n tio n th at th e b ar n otap p ly to m u ltip le c laim s w ith in a sing l e su i t. He c o nt en d s t hat l i k e th e j udg m en t ba r, the p u rp os e o f res j u d ica ta is to a v o i d m u ltip le law su its , a co nc ern w hich i s no t i m pl i ca te d whenpl aint i ff s br i ng al l c lai m s i n a s i ng l e ac ti o n. M anni ngs uppo r ts hi s ar g um en t byno tingthe u se of the t er m “ ba r, ” whi chc o nsti tutes a com ponent o fr es j ud i cat a, and the l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryo f§ 2676
. Re g ar dl es s o fwhethe r the po i ntha s r elevan ce t o o ur i nquir y, Congr ess di d not i m portco m m on l aw re s j ud i cata i nt o § 2 67 6. As t o the di sc us si o n i n Wil l , M anni ng ’ s ar g um ent dr aw s t oo m uch f ro m the Court’ s co m parat i ve p oin t. R at h er t h an s u gg es tin g t h at § 26 76 im p or te d p rin c ipl es o fr es j udi ca ta, the Co ur t m er ely o bs er ved tha t th e j ud gm ent b ar was akin to r es j ud i cata i n that a deci si on ba se d o n e i th erdi d no t war r an t co l l atera l r ev i ew. The j ud g ment bar

— w h ich is “a rg u ab ly b ro ad er than tra diti onal re s j ud i cata ”

— st an ds o n i ts o wn. Addi ti o na l l y, we fi nd li ttle i n th e use of t he term “bar” to su p p ort M an nin g’s ar gum ent. The u se o fthe ter m “ba r” i s no t co nfined to the pr i nci ple o fr es j ud i cata ; we re ferwitho ut r efer ence to the pri nci ple to sta tutes o fl i m i tat i on “ bar s” orj uri sdic

tional “bars.” W e also find l ittl e s up p ort forM an nin g’s ar gum ent in the l egi sl ati ve h istor y o f§ 2676
. Beca us e § 2676 is nota m bi g uo us , we ne ed no t l o o kt o the leg isla tiv e h ist or y t o d et er m i n e i ts m ea n in g. Se eExxon M obil Co rp. v. Allapattah Service s, Inc. , 54 5 U.S
. 546, 568, 12 5 S. Ct. 26 11, 1 62 L.Ed. 2d 502 ( 2005 )
. But ass um i ng argue ndo th atthe pr o po se d r ea di ngi s te xtur al l y pl au sibl e, the l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y do e s n o ta l t e r o urv i e w o fthe b e stN os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 13 i nter preta ti on o f§ 2676
. The l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryr el i ed up on b y M anni ng

— a s tat em ent b y the A tto rneyGenera l bef or e the H ouse J ud i ci ar y Com m i tte e

— ne i th erment i o ns re s j ud i cata norl i m i ts the s cope o fthe j ud gm ent b ar to excl ud e ca ses such a s M anni ng’ s. F inal l y, i n h i s r epl y b r i ef, M anni ngc ul l s an o th era r g um en t f r o m th e l angu age i n Wil l

. H e co ntends thatacco r di ngt o the po r ti o n o fthe o pi ni o n quo te d abo ve, the j ud g men tb a r “ do e s n o ta pp l y wh e n F TC A a nd B ivens c l a i ms a r e p e n d i ng s i mu l t a n e o u s l y . ” B e c a u s e h i s t wo cl ai m s were “pendin g si m ult aneousl y” i n the sam e ca se, the a rgum ent goe s, the j ud gm ent b arsho uld notapply

. T ha t is not the h olding of Wil l , and the “pending si m ult an e o us l y ” l a n g u a g e fr o m Wil l is t ak en ou t o f co n te x t. In anal yzi ng the “e sse nti al p ro ceduralel em ent” of§ 2676 , the Cour t no ted thatthe j ud gm en t b ar does not tak e e ffe c tu nt i l a j ud g men ti s e nt e r e d. As l o nga s the F TC A cl ai m i s “ p en ding”

— i
. e. , no t ta k ent o j udg m en t

— the b ar has no effect. That “ proce du ra l” el em ent di sti ngui shes i t fro m q ual i fi ed i m m unity, and r enders i t unfi t f orco l l ater alr ev i ew. Tha t d iscussi o n h as no b ea r i ngo n the case bef or e us, M anni ng’ s eff or ts to f or ce the la n guage notwiths tandi ng.

B. A pp l i c ation of§ 2676 t o Pr evi ousl y Ent er ed J ud gm en ts M anni nga l te r na ti ve l y argue s tha t ev eni fthe j udg m en t b a r a pp l i e s wh e n F TC A a nd B iven s c laim s a re br o u g h t in the sam e acti on, it shoul d not be rea d to al l ow ret ro acti ve null i fi cati on o fa previ ous B iven s j ud gm ent.14 N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 A gai n, we begin w i th the l anguage o f the s tatute, wh i ch we fi nd un ambi g i o us . M anni nga r g ue s th atthe us e o fthe ter m “ba r” pre cl ud es onl y fu ture l i ti gat i on, notl i ti gat i on that has pre vi ousl y pr oce eded to ju d gm ent. W e di sag re e. N othi ng ab out the t er m “ba r” o n it s ow n i nd i cate s a tem pora l el em ent. The “com ple te bar ” a s use d i n § 2 676 i s pro specti ve on ly i n that i t e nter s into effect afteran en tr y o f j udg m en t i n th e F TCA c l ai m ; b utthe r e i s no th i ng i n th e te xt r es tr i ct i ng th at effec t to futur e cl aim s. T he c om m on u se of th e n ou n “b ar ” s u p p or ts th is re ad in g. See Bl ac k ’ s Law Di ct i o na r y 1 57

- 58 ( 8th Ed. 2 00 4) ( defi ni ng “bar ” a s a “ba rr i erto o r the dest ructi on o fa l ega l act i on orcl ai m ”)
. S o too does the re m ai ni ng t ext o fthe sta tute. Se c tio n § 26 76 ap p lies to “a n y ac tio n ”; “a n y” m ea n s “ an y,” re gar dle ss ofthe sequenci ng o fthe j ud gm ents. Few court s hav e a dd re sse d thi s i ssue, pri m ar i l y b ecause i n th e o ve r whel m i ng number o f ca se s wher e F TC A a nd B iven s claim s are brou gh t in th e sam e suit, a d istri ct cou rt w i l l ente r j ud gm ent o n the FTCA cl ai m ei therbefor e o r si m ult aneousl y with the B iven s j udg m en t. I n Tre nt adue, ou r sis te r c irc u it fou n d th at § 26 76 ap p lied to ret ro ac tiv ely bara B iven s j ud gm ent enter ed pri or to a FTCA j u d gm en t. 397 F. 3d at 859. I n that case, as he re, th e d istri c t c o urt t r i e d p l a i nt i ff s ’ F TC A a nd B i v e n s cl ai m s co ntem pora neo us l y i n a b i fur ca te d pr o ce eding . A j ur y f o und f or the pl a i nt i ff s o n the B i ven s claim s, an d the d istri ct cou rt en tered a j ud gm en t. Several m ont hs l ater, the cou rt enter ed a j ud gm en t on the FTCA cl ai m s. The co urt then dism i sse d the B iven s c l a i ms, fi nd i ngtha t§ 2 6 7 6 a pp l i e d. The cour t f ound that the se quenc in g of the j ud gm ents w as i rr el evant to the j ud gm ent bar ’ s effect. I n doi ng so , i tN os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 15

re lied on th e in te n t o f § 26 76 , w h ich “p re ve n t[s ] m u l tip le l aw sui ts as w el l as m ult i ple rec ove ri es. ” Id

. ( ci ti ng Fa rm er v. P er ri ll, 275 F.3d 958 , 963 n. 7 ( 10th Cir. 2001)). Other c o ur t s ha v e a pp r o v e d o f the pr o po s i t i o n that a j ud gm ent on an FTCA cl ai m re quir es vacatur ofan e ar l i er j ud gm ent o n a B iven s c laim

. SeeEn gle, 24 F. 3d at 135 ( “H ad [ pla i nti ff ] ch os en to s eekhi s r edres s fro m the i nd i vi du al l aw enf or cem ent offi cer, the j ury ver dict w ould h ave been gi ven fulleffect.
. . . Because, however, he c hose to se ek redres s fro m the U ni ted S tat es gov er nm ent, he ha d n o rig h t t o a j u ry ’s v er d ict .”); M cCab ev. M acAul ay, 20 08 W L 2 98 00 13 , a t * 14 ( N
. D
. I o wa Augu st0 1, 2 00 8 ) ( ci ting Tre nt adue, 39 7 F
. 3d at8 59 ) ( “[ I ] t i s ‘ i nc o ns eque nt i al ’ tha t th e cour t e n te re d j ud gm ent [ i n the B iven s ac tio n ] be for e it en te r ed j udg m en t a g ains t the U ni te d St at es ; the j udg m en t b ar m ay oper ate ret ro ac tiv ely .”); se e also O rt iz , 88 F. Supp.2d a t1 6 7( c i t i ng E ngle, 2 4 F
. 3 d a t1 3 4

- 3 6 a nd Serra , 78 6 F
. 2d at 241- 42) ( noti ng that i f a pla i nti ff brings both cl ai m s in the s am e a cti on, and succee ds on the Biv ens ac ti on fi rs t, “[ a] de c i s i o n t o th e n p r o c e e d o n th e F T C A c l a i m mi g ht j eo p ar d ize an y fa vo ra b le v er d ict p l a i n tiff re c eiv ed on h is Biven s cl ai m s i nc e . . . a de ci si o n a nd j udg m en t o n the FTCA cl ai m i s l i kel y t o null i fy a ny B iven s j ud gm en t”). W e a gr ee w i th the r eas oni ng o fthese cases

. The f act that th e c o u r t en tered j ud gm en t against the FB Iagen ts before i t en te r ed j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe Uni te d S ta te s ha s no bear i ng o n the appli cati on o f§ 2676
. M anni ng ’ s r el i an ce o n K reines v. U nited Sta tes , 9 5 9 F. 2d 834 (9th Cir. 1992), is m isplaced

. Th ere, th e plaintiff bro ught B iven s an d FTC A c lai m s in the sam e suit. T he j ury16 N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 found fo r the pl ai nti ffo n the B iven s cl ai m , a nd the c ou rt en tered a j ud gm en t. T hree m ont hs later, the d istri ct cou rt en te r ed a j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe Uni te d S ta te s i n the F TCA c l ai m . The c o ur t th ende ni ed a m oti o n b y the de fe nd a nt s o fthe B iven s cl ai m t o v ac at e th e j udg m en t aga i nst them

. The N i nth Cir cui t a ffi rm ed, fi nd i n g a n am bi gui ty w i thi n the pla i n l anguage of the ter m “j ud gm en t” i n § 2 67 6 th ata l l o wed a n i nt er pr et at i o n tha t Con

g r es s i nt en ded to di st i ng ui shb etwee n f avorabl e an d u n fav or ab le m er its j u d gm en ts
. T h e j u d gm en t b a r w ou ld apply, acc or ding to the K reines co ur t, i fa n F TCA j udg m en t w ere in favor of th e p lai nt iff, bu t not i f th e j ud gm en t w ere i n f avo r ofthe gov er nm ent. A ccor dingl y, § 26 76 d i d not apply. As no te d abo ve , we ha ve r ej ec te d the unde r l y i ngr ea so ni ngi n K reines , an d th er efo re d o n otat ta c h m u c h sign ific an c e to it s o u tc om e. H o o sier B a nc o rp , 90 F. 3d at 185 (“Th ere i s no i nd i cati on that Congress i ntended Sect i on 2 676 to ap p ly only to favorable FTC A j ud gm en ts.”). Other c ourt s ha ve also repu d iated the reaso nin g of Kre i nes . See Harris , 422 F.3d at33 5; s e e a l so G a sho v. U nited Sta tes , 39 F.3 d 14 20 , 143 7 (9 th C ir. 19 94 ) (n ot in g t h at “t h e h old in g in K reines w as n ar ro w ly c on fin ed t o it s fa c ts ”). T h u s w h ile M an nin g m ay fi nd ap p ealing the resu lt of K reines , the r e a s o n i n gs u p p o r t i n gth a tr e s u l td o e s n o ta v a i l h i m. M an y o f M an n in g’s rem ain in g a rg u m en ts are eq u ita b le i n n atur e, s ug g es tingtha t he w as bli nds i ded bythe cour t’ s d eci si on o r that he was unw i ttingl y l ed i nto a poo r st r at eg i c ch o i ce . The r ec o r d b el i es the se a r g um en ts
. Dur i ng th e c ou rs e o f t h e p r oc ee d in gs be low , M an n in g a c kn ow ledg ed ana war en es s o fthe r i sktha t a j ud gm en t o n theN os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 17 F TC A c l a i m wo l d n ul l i fy the B i v ens j u d gm en t. In h is m o t i o n t o e n t e r j u d g me n t o n th e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t o n t he B iven s c laim

— fi l ed be f or e the ent ryo fthe FTCA j ud gm en t

— M anni ng not ed the possibi l i ty that entering j ud gm en t m i ght b arhi s B iven s c l a i m, a s s o me c o ur t s “ b e l i eve th atj udg m en t on the F TCA c l ai m i s ‘ l i k ely t o nul l i fy a ny B iven s j udg m en t. ’ ” As the di st r ict c o ur t no te d, M anni ng “w as aw ar e th at by al l owing the F TC A cl ai m s t o proce ed to ju dgm ent, he r i ske d l osing the j ury aw ar d, by op e r a t i o n o f l a w, o nc e the Co ur t e nt e r e d j ud g ment on th e F T C A cla im s.”

I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e a re notbl i nd to the fa c t that thi s inter preta ti on o f § 2 676 re sul ts in a si gni fi cant r eve rs alo ff or tune f or M anni ng. M anni ng co nd em ns this resul t as “ nonsensi cal ”; at lea st on e cou rt h as id en tifie d su c h a res u l t a s “ h ar sh .” SeeM cCa be, 20 08 W L 29800 13, at* 15 ( “A l though s uch re tr oac ti ve oper ati on of § 2 676 m ay see m har sh, i fnot Kafk a- es que , Pl aint i ff s pur su ed th ei r c l ai m s ag ains t th e U ni ted S tat es at thei r own per i l

. ”)
. But w e a re bo und by the pl ai n l anguage o fthe j ud gm ent b ar, w h ich m ake s no ex ce pti o n f o r c l ai m s br o ug hti n the s ame a ct i o n, a nd gi ves no i nd i cati on that the sequencingo fj ud gm ents sh ou ld con trol th e ap p li cation of th e bar. M anni ng’ s deci si on t o tak e the FTCA cl ai m s t o j ud gm ent, afterhe ha d secured a $6. 5 m i l l i on ve rdi ct o n the Bive ns cl a i ms , t r i g g e r e d § 2 6 7 6 a n d r e q u i r e d a v a c a t u r o ft he Bive ns ju d gm en t. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n oterr in applying the j ud gm ent b ar . Because w e fin d that§ 267618 N os. 07

- 1120 and 07- 1427 ap p lies , w e n ee d n otrea c h th e c on d itio n al c ro ss -ap p ea l. A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM .

10- 6- 08