Court Opinion

ID: 2963484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:10:37.294907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.246887
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 12, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2237 

                                 DR. AMARENDRA TUNGA,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             PROF. LOUIS D. QUIN, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Dr. Amarendra Tunga on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            Joyce  A.  Kirby,  General  Counsel,  U.  of  Mass.,  and  Special
            ________________
        Assistant Attorney  General, and Deirdre Heatwole,  Associate Counsel,
                                         ________________
        U. of Mass., on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Dr. Amarendra Tunga  filed similar actions
                 __________

            in  state and federal court complaining of the termination of

            his  temporary appointment  as  a visiting  scientist at  the

            University of  Massachusetts at  Amherst.  Some  months after

            the  state  court  suit  was dismissed,  the  district  court

            dismissed the instant action (1) on claim preclusion grounds,

            (2) for failure to  state a claim, and (3)  because plaintiff

            had  not   adequately  justified  his  failure   to  file  an

            opposition to  defendants' motion to  dismiss.  As  the first

            rationale  provides  ample  support  for  the  court's action

            (especially now that plaintiff's  appeal from the state court

            judgment has been dismissed), we affirm on that basis alone.

                 Little discussion  is required.   A federal  court "must

            give preclusive effect to state court judgments in accordance

            with state law,"  Mulrain v.  Board of Selectmen  of Town  of
                              _______     _______________________________

            Leicester, 944 F.2d 23, 25 (1st  Cir. 1991); we thus look  to
            _________

            Massachusetts res judicata principles.  In Isaac v. Schwartz,
                                                       _____    ________

            706 F.2d 15 (1st  Cir. 1983), we summarized those  principles

            as follows: 

                 Massachusetts  courts  apply  res  judicata   in  a
                 perfectly traditional manner.   That is to say, the
                 doctrine prevents the  relitigation of "issues that
                 were  or could have  been dealt with  in an earlier
                 litigation."    The  entry  of a  valid  and  final
                 judgment on the merits "extinguishes ... all rights
                 of  a plaintiff to  remedies against  the defendant
                 with respect to all or any part of the transaction,
                 or series  of connected transactions,  out of which
                 the complaint arose."
                      ....

                 ....    In Massachusetts,  as  elsewhere,  a second
                 claim  is barred  "even  though  the  plaintiff  is
                 prepared  in  the  second  action  ...  to  present
                 evidence,  grounds, or  theories  of  the case  not
                 presented in the  first action ...."   The issue is
                 "not  whether  the  plaintiff in  fact  argued  his
                 [civil  rights] claims in the state proceeding, but
                 whether he could have."

            Id. at 16-17 (citations  omitted); accord, e.g., Willhauck v.
            ___                                ______  ____  _________

            Halpin, 953 F.2d 689, 704-05 (1st Cir. 1991).
            ______

                 The  instant case clearly falters under these standards.

            Indeed, the  state and  federal complaints (both  as amended)

            are virtually verbatim copies of one another--to the point of

            sharing the  same typographical  errors.   Plaintiff protests

            that the respective legal theories diverge, in that his state

            action focused on slander while the federal action advanced a

            host of civil rights and constitutional claims.  Even if true

            (and the language of the complaints indicates otherwise), all

            such allegations "grow[] out of the same transaction, act, or

            agreement and seek[] redress for the same wrong."  Mackintosh
                                                               __________

            v.  Chambers, 285 Mass. 594, 596 (1934) (quoted in Isaac, 706
                ________                                       _____

            F.2d at  17).   Plaintiff's suggestion that  claim preclusion

            does not apply  in civil  rights actions is  mistaken.   See,
                                                                     ___

            e.g., Mulrain,  944 F.2d at 25.   And contrary to his further
            ____  _______

            assertion, "a dismissal for failure  to state a claim,  under

            Mass. R. Civ.  P. 12(b)(6),  operates as a  dismissal on  the

            merits,  see  Mass. R.  Civ. P.  41(b)(3), with  res judicata
                     ___

            effect."  Isaac, 706 F.2d at 17.
                      _____

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -3-