Court Opinion

ID: 2964776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:57.162281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:01.344155
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 96-2113 
                                  JOSEPH T. MUIGAI,
                             D/B/A C.M.S. CONSTRUCTION,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,
                                         v.
                             CITY OF PITTSFIELD, ET AL.,
                               Defendants, Appellees.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                             and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                ____________________
            Joseph T. Muigai on brief pro se.
            Kathleen Alexander, City Solicitor, on brief for appellees.
                                ____________________
                                    June 5, 1997
                                ____________________

                 Per 
                    Curiam. 
                             
                             Appellant Joseph Muigai appeals the district
            court  judgment dismissing  his  civil rights  complaint  and
            denying 
                   his 
                       request 
                              for 
                                  injunctive relief.  Essentially for the
            reasons given  by the district  court in  its memorandum  and
            order, 
                  dated 
                        July 17, 1996, we find Muigai's claim for damages
            and injunctive relief against the City of Pittsfield and  its
            employees  in  their  official  capacity  barred  under   the
            principles of res judicata.  Muigai's previous suit in  state
            court against the City  of Pittsfield arose "out of the  same
            nucleus of operative  facts as his present suit and  [sought]
            redress 
                   for 
                       essentially the same basic wrong.  [Thus,] the two
            suits [advanced] the same cause of action notwithstanding any
            difference 
                      in 
                        remedies 
                                 sought or theories of recovery pleaded."
            Kale
                
                v. 
                   Combi
                        ned Ins. Co. of America, 924 F.2d 1161, 1166 (1st
            Cir.),  cert. denied,  502 U.S.  816 (1991).   Moreover,  the
            employees, insofar as they were sued in an official capacity,
            were 
                in 
                   privity with Pittsfield and thus also protected by the
            principles 
                      of 
                        res
                            
                            judicat
                                   a.  See Seabrook v. New Hampshire, 738
            F.2d 10, 11 (1st Cir. 1984).  
                 However, we question whether the bar applies as well  to
            his 
               claims 
                      against the employees in their individual capacity.
            Precedent suggests otherwise.  Roy v. Augusta, 712 F.2d 1517,
            1522 
                (1st 
                     Cir. 1983) (prior suit against defendant in official
            capacity does not  bar later suit  against same defendant  in
            individual capacity); Gray  v. Lacke, 885 F.2d 399, 404  (7th
                                         -2-

            Cir. 
                1989) 
                      (same), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1029 (1990); Headley
            v. 
              Bacon
                   , 
                     828 F.2d 1272, 1279 (8th Cir. 1987) (same); see also
            Frost v.  Thompson, 219 Mass. 360,  368, 106 N.E. 1009,  1011
            (1914) 
                  (res
                       
                       j
                        udicata applies only if action is brought against
            defendant  in same capacity  as in earlier  action).  In  any
            event, the  district  court should  have dismissed  the  suit
            against 
                   the 
                       employees in their individual capacity for lack of
            personal  jurisdiction.  The  record  makes  clear  that  the
            employees were never  properly served as required by Fed.  R.
            Civ. 
                P. 
                   4. 
                       
                       Furthermore, since the defense of lack of personal
            jurisdiction 
                        was 
                           raised 
                                  in defendants' first responsive motion,
            it was not waived.  Absent proper service or waiver  thereof,
            the district  court lacked  the authority  to adjudicate  the
            claim.  General Contracting & Trading Co. v. Interpole  Inc.,
            899 
               F.2d 
                    109, 114 (1st Cir. 1990).  This was true even though,
            in  the  instant case,  the  judgment  was in  favor  of  the
            defendants.  See Northwestern National Casualty Co. v. Global
            Moving  & Storage, Inc.,  533 F.2d 320,  323 (6th Cir.  1976)
            ("[T]he trial court  erred in entering  judgment in favor  of
            [defendants]  before determining  that it  had the  requisite
            personal jurisdiction.").
                 The 
                    district 
                             court judgment is affirmed as to the City of
            Pittsfield 
                      and 
                         the 
                             employees in their official capacity.  It is
            vacated as to the employees in their individual capacity  and
            the 
               case 
                    is 
                       remanded
                               
                               to 
                                  the district court with instructions to
                                         -3-

            enter 
                 an 
                    order dismissing the complaint against these for lack
            of personal jurisdiction.
                                         -4-