IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20523

Summary Calendar

JOSEPH HARGROVE, JR; SHARON L. HILL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

BARCLAYS CAPITAL REAL ESTATE INC, doing business as Homeq Servicing;

MANN & STEVENS, P.C.,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CV-1617

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Joseph Hargrove, Jr., and Sharon Hill appeal the district court’s dismissal

of their pro se civil complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and on res

judicata grounds. In 2009, the appellants filed a pro se complaint seeking to

quiet title on a piece of property that they own in Sugarland, Texas, and raising

additional state and federal claims. Among the claims raised was that the

defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act and the Fair Debt Collection

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 20, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-20523 Document: 00511179347 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2010
No. 09-20523

Practices Act. The appellants asserted that as a result of the defendants’

wrongful action they were facing the wrongful foreclosure of their home.

The district court, however, concluded that the doctrine of res judicata

applied to bar the appellants’ federal claims because the appellants previously

had filed a complaint in federal court in 2007 raising the same claims against

the same defendants.

The appellants contend that the district court erred in dismissing their

complaint on res judicata grounds because the parties to the 2007 and 2009

actions are not the same and because the 2007 judgment was void and the

district court was without subject matter jurisdiction.

We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under either Rule

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim or on res judicata grounds de novo. See Test

Master Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005); Bombardier

Aerospace Employee Welfare Benefits Plan v. Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough, 354

F.3d 348, 351 (5th Cir. 2003). Under res judicata or claim preclusion, “a final

judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from

relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Oreck

Direct, LLC v. Dyson, Inc., 560 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). A claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata if

the following four requirements are met: “(1) the parties must be identical in the

two actions; (2) the prior judgment must have been rendered by a court of

competent jurisdiction; (3) there must be a final judgment on the merits; and (4)

the same claim or cause of action must be involved in both cases.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

The appellants challenge only the first and second requirements. Blue

brief, 7-10. Accordingly, the other requirements will not be considered. See

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that even pro se

litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them).

2

Case: 09-20523 Document: 00511179347 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/20/2010
No. 09-20523

The appellants assert that Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc., d/b/a Homeq

Servicing and Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC, two of the defendants

named in the instant complaint, were not named as defendants in the 2007

complaint. However, after a careful review of the record, we conclude that these

entities were parties to the 2007 litigation. Thus, the identity-of-the-parties

requirement of res judicata is satisfied.

Further, the appellants’ contention that res judicata should not bar their

claims because the 2007 judgment was void and because the district court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction is unavailing. The appellants have failed to

demonstrate that the 2007 judgment was not rendered by a court of competent

jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 09-20523 Document: 00511179347 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/20/2010