Opinion ID: 430483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sitomer's claims

Text: 30 We turn now to the merits of the summary judgment decision by the district court. We consider Sitomer's claims first. Sitomer has already brought and lost an action in superior court which adjudged on the merits several of the issues raised in this case. That court found that Sitomer suffered no constitutional injury prior to filing this suit. Hence, his claim for damages due to allegations that these past appointments abridged his constitutional rights is barred by res judicata. See Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982); cf. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (applying collateral estoppel). 31 Whether res judicata also bars Sitomer's broader claims that the system is so unfair it inherently infringes on his constitutional rights, and therefore that he should receive no future neglect appointments, is a tougher question. While we might hesitate to invoke res judicata to bar Sitomer from litigating claims about future appointments that he could have brought but did not, 10 here the superior court judge actually entertained and rejected such claims. It found that the appointment practices of the Family Division are not generally so noxious as to violate Mr. Sitomer's constitutional rights. 11 See In the Matters of N.P. and L.W., slip op. at 4. Therefore, we hold that all of Sitomer's claims are barred by res judicata.