Opinion ID: 4564363
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: Uintah County urges this court to affirm on the alternate ground that issue own proceedings in favor of federal resolution of the issues” eliminates an “essential predicate to Younger abstention,” namely, “the presence of an ongoing state prosecution,” Sw. Air Ambulance, Inc. v. City of Las Cruces, 268 F.3d 1162, 1178 (10th Cir. 2001). 6 preclusion bars Hackford from relitigating the finding in his first lawsuit that he is not an Indian for purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction. But the district court in the first lawsuit made two independent findings: (1) Hackford’s traffic offense occurred outside of Indian Country, and (2) Hackford is not an Indian in the relevant sense. Each of those findings would have been enough to sustain the judgment, and this court affirmed only the first one. Issue preclusion does not apply unless the issue previously decided was “essential to the judgment.” Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 774 F.3d 1292, 1297 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Where the prior court gave alternative rulings on a given issue, and where each is sufficient to support the result, neither is typically given issue-preclusive effect because it cannot be said that either issue was actually and necessarily decided.” Id. at 1297 n.1 (internal quotation marks omitted). Uintah County does not explain why this case presents something other than the typical scenario. We accordingly decline to affirm the district court on the alternative basis of issue preclusion.