* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20318

Summary Calendar

JOHN HATTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DANIEL D. GRIGAR,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-3981

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Appellant John Hatton, pro se, appeals the district court’s

judgment dismissing his claims against Defendant-Appellee Daniel D. Grigar.

For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

In 1997, after a dispute with Hatton over the use of a certain strip of land,

Grigar sought a declaratory judgment that the strip of land was a public road.

On June 23, 2000, the 268th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20318

2

entered judgment declaring the land in dispute to be a public road and granting

Grigar an easement on the road. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals

affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

On December 15, 2006, Hatton filed the present suit in the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging a trespass to try title

claim and seeking a restraining order, a temporary injunction, a permanent

injunction, and a declaratory judgment that Grigar is barred from using the

same road that was at issue in the state court proceedings. The district court

dismissed Hatton’s suit, finding that his claims were barred by res judicata.

Hatton timely appeals.

The res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that we

review de novo. Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 313 (5th Cir.

2004). 

Res judicata bars the litigation of claims that have been litigated or should

have been raised in an earlier suit. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428

F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005). “The test for res judicata has four elements: (1)

the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the judgment in the prior action was

rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was concluded

by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was

involved in both actions.” Id.

On appeal, Hatton does not dispute the district court’s finding that the

first three elements for establishing res judicata are met–the parties to the

present litigation are identical to the parties in the state court proceeding, the

prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the prior

action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits. Rather, he argues that

the district court erred in determining that the fourth element was met because

the present case involves a different cause of action than the one determined in
No. 07-20318

1

In particular, Hatton argues that his trespass to try title claim, unlike the declaratory

judgment action before the state court, seeks to determine who has lawful title to the road.

3

the state court proceedings.1 We disagree. At their core, Hatton’s present claims

rest on exactly the same issue litigated before the state court: whether the road

at issue is a private or public road. Moreover, the state court had the

opportunity to consider Hatton’s testimony that the road was a private road

which he controlled and maintained. Notwithstanding that testimony, the state

court found that Hatton did not have any exclusive right to use of the road and

that the road was a public road. 

Because we find that the same cause of action was involved in the state

court action and we find that the district court properly determined that the

other three elements for establishing res judicata are met, we AFFIRM the

judgment of the district court.