FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T November

25, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 10 74 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 60 81 8- CV-AJ JUDY COPELAND, wit h h el p o f ro omm at e Car l Sh el l due to Ju dy Cop el an d's m en ta l re ta rd at io n, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, CARL SHELL, Pl ai nt iff , ve rs us HOUSING AUTHO RITY OF HOLLYW OOD, TIM SC HWARTZ,
Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 25 , 20 08 )Befo re ANDERSON, CARNES, an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Ju dy Cop el an d, p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t i n fav orof t he Hou si ng Autho rit y of Ho ll ywoo d a ndon e o f it s emplo y ees , Tim Sch wart z, on he r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c la im s. Co pe landall eg edth atth e Hou si ng Aut ho rit y vi ol at edth e Due Pro ces s C laus e an d d ep riv edhe r of co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect edpro pe rty rig ht s wh enitterm in at edhe r ho us in g b en efi ts . The co ur t gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t h er b as edon res jud ic at a. Co pe la ndco nt en ds th atres jud ic at a d oe s n otba r he r cl ai m s b ecau se th ey were n otad dr es se d i n e arl ie r, rel at edst at e co urt ac ti on s. Sh e al so ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d en ia l o f he r
m ot io ns forreh eari ng an d t o app oi ntco un se l, as well as i ts de ni al of h er p en di ng
m ot io ns as m oo t. I. Thi s i s C op el an d’s t hi rdlaws ui t ag ai ns t t he Hou si ng Aut ho rit y an d Sch wart z b as edon th e te rm in at io n o f he r Sec ti on 8 h ou si ng be ne fit s. Co pe la nd ’s tro ub le s b eg an onJu ne 20 , 20 03 when he r la nd lo rdterm in at edhe r le as e b ecau se Co pe la ndha d v io la te d o f th e te rm s o f th e le as e b y all owi ng he r so n t o m ov e in wit h h er i n h er o ne -b edro om ap art m en t. Lat er, s he was e vi ct edfro m th e ap art m en t

2by cou rt o rd er i n Dec em be r 20 03 , bu t t he ev ic ti on ord er was ba se d s ol el y on he r fai lu re t o p ay

he r po rti on of t he ren t fo r th e p rev io us fiv e m on th s. Co pe land ’s fai lu re t o p ay

ren t was a “ se rio us vi ol at io n o f he r le as e” u nd er t he Hou si ng Aut ho rit y reg ul at io ns , see 24 C.F.R. § 98 2.5 52 (b )(2 ), an d t he reg ul at io ns
m an da te d t ha t h er Se ct io n 8 be ne fit s b e te rm in at ed . See i d. Co pe la ndfil edhe r fi rs t l aws ui t ag ai ns t t he Hou si ng Aut ho rit y an d S ch wart z in Flo rid a st at e co urt o n S ep te m be r 29 , 20 04 all eg in g v io la ti on s o f va rio us reg ul at io ns of t he Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f Hou si ng an d Urb anDeve lo pm en t
an d c la im in g t ha t h er b en efi ts were i m pr op erl y term in at ed . Spe ci fic al ly, sh e
co nt en de d t ha t h er fa il ur e to pa y ren t was no t a “ se rio us vi ol at io n o f he r le as e” be cau se he r le as e h adbe en term in at edbe fo re s he st op pe d p ay in g re nt
. Afte r a he ari ng , th e st at e co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r th e Hou si ng Aut ho rit y an d Sch wart z. The s ta te ap pe ll at e co ur t af firm edth atrul in g wi th ou t o pi ni on . Co pe la ndfil eda se co ndlaws ui t ag ai ns t t he Hou si ng Aut ho rit y an d Sch wart z in Flo rid a st at e co urt o n S ep te m be r 18 , 20 06 , th is ti m e u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 . In t ha t s ui t, s he ess en ti al ly argu edth atsh e h adbe en de pr iv edof
co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edpro pe rty rig ht s an d tha t t he Hou si ng Autho rit y vi ol at ed fed eral ho us in g re gu la ti on s wh en itterm in at edhe r be ne fit s. Th e d efen da nt s fi le d

3se pa rat e m ot io ns to di sm is s, wh ic h the co urt g ran te d wi th pre jud ic e. Co pe la nd in it ia ll y ap pe al edth atde ci si on , bu t l at er v ol un ta ril y di sm is se d the ap pe al
. Co pe la ndfil edth e p res en t l aws ui t i n fe de ral di stric t co urt co nt en di ng th at
un de r § 1 98 3 t he term in at io n o f he r ho us in g b en efi ts de pr iv edhe r of a
co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edpro pe rty rig htan d v io la te d due pro ces s. The d is tri ct 1
co ur t ru le d t ha t Co pe la nd ’s cla im was b arre d b y

res jud ic at a an d e nt eredsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

th e d efen da nt s. II . W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co ur t o rd er b arri ng a cl ai m on th e b as is of r es jud ic at a. See R ag sd al e v . Rub be rm ai d, In c., 19 3 F .3d12 35 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . “ Res jud ic at a b ars th e fi li ng of c la im s wh ic h wer e rai se d o r
co ul d h av e b eenrai se d i n a n e arl ie r pr oc eed in g.” Id. (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Whe n th e ear li er p ro ceed in g i s a s ta te co ur t ju dg m en t, we re ly on t ha t s ta te ’s law t o de te rm in e whe th er t he lat er ac ti on is ba rredby res jud ic at a. See Ki zzi re v . Bap ti st Heal th Sy s., In c., 44 1 F .3d13 06 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Thi s ca se in vo lv es earl ie r jud gm en ts by Flo rid a st at e co urts , andth us Flo rid a st at e p recl us io n l aw ap pl ie s.

Copeland also included a claim that her

constitutional rights we re violate d when the 1 HousingAuthority

did not continue her he aringuntil she was able to r etain counse l. The district court prope rly

dismiss ed this claim for f ailure to state a

cause of ac tion upon which relief can be g rante d. 4Fl or id a la w pro vi de s t ha t a p art y is pre cl ud edfro m

rai si ng an y

is su e th atwas o r
co ul d h av e b eenrai se d i n a n e arl ie r su itth at(1) in vo lv edsame part ie s; (2) was o n th e sa m e cau se of a ct io n; an d (3 ) was de ci de d o n the m eri ts . See Fl a. Dep ’t Tran sp . v. Jul ia no , 80 1 S o. 2 d 1 01 , 10 5 (F la . 20 01 ). Here th es e requi rem en ts are m et , an d Co pe la nd is ba rred fro m rel it ig at in g he r cl ai m fo r ho us in g be ne fit s. Her cu rren t la wsu it in vo lv es th e sa m e pa rti es in th e sa m e cap aci ty as in he r earl ie r su it s. Ju st as in he r two earl ie r la wsu it s, Co pe la nd ’s cu rren t
on e al le ge s th e sa m e fact s to supp or t he r co nt en ti on th at he r be ne fit s were im pr op erl y te rm in at ed
. Sh e al so se ek s th e sa m e rel ie f: rei ns ta te m en t of he r be ne f it s an d
m on et ary da m ag es . Mo reo ve r, sh e rai se d ne arl y id en ti cal § 19 83 cl ai m s in he r se co nd st at e co ur t la wsu it
. Und er Fl or id a la w c la im s are co ns id ered to be pa rt o f th e sa m e
cau se of act io n if th e fact s es se nt ia l to th e m ai nt en an ce of bo th act io ns are th e sa m e. See Go rd on v. Go rd on , 59 So . 2 d 4 0, 4 4 (F la . 19 52 ). Alt ho ug h C op el an d’s cu rren t la wsu it un de r § 19 83 ha s th e gl os s of al le gi ng ne w co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns , it is th e
sa m e cau se of a ct io n a s h er ea rli er l aws ui ts forth e pu rp os es of res jud ic at a. To t he
ex te nt th at th ere are an y di st in ct io ns , he r cl ai m s are st il l pr ecl ud ed as “ is su es th at
co ul d h av e b eenrai se d” inhe r ear li er l aws ui ts . See J ul iano , 80 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 05
. Fi na ll y , bo th earl ie r jud gm en ts were on t h e m eri ts
. In th e fir st la wsu it , th e
co ur t en te red su m

m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e Hou si ng Aut ho rit y an d Sch wart z.
5In th e se co ndon e, th e co urt d is m is se d C op el an d’s co m pl ai ntwit h p reju di ce, wh ic h
un de r Fl or id a la w op erat ed as an ad jud ic at io n o n t h e mer it s. See Fl a. R. Ci v. P. 1.4 20 (b ) (“ Unl es s th e co urt in it s or de r fo r di sm is sa l ot he rwis e sp eci fie s, a di sm is sa l
un de r t h i s s u bd iv is io n . . . , ot he r th an a di sm is sa l fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on or fo r im pr op er ve nu e or fo r la ck of an in di sp en sabl e pa rty, op erat es as an ad jud ic at io n on th e m eri ts .”). As th e di st ric t co urt no te d, “ [t]he rat io na l of th e do ct rin e of res jud ic at a is th at th ere m us t be an en d to li ti ga ti on ,” Que st In te rn ., In c. v. Trid en t Sh ip works , In c., 95 8 So
. 2d 11 15 , 11 19 (Fl a. 4t h DCA 20 07 ), an d Co pe la nd ha s ha d he r da y in c o urt. Bec au se Co pe la nd ’s § 19 83 cl ai m s are ba rred by res jud ic at a, th e d i s t r i c t co urt
co rrec tl y gra nt edsu m

m ary jud gm en t fo r th e d efen da nt s. 2 AFFIRMED.

Be cause we a ffirm the district c ourt’s orde r grantingsummary judgme nt for the Housing 2 Authority and Schwa

rtz, we also af

firm the district cour

t’s judgme nts deny

ing a s moot her related motions. For the same re ason, we deny Copeland’s a

nd Carl Shell’s rema ining motions befor e us on this appea l. 6