Carrillo v. Pima Community College District
4:25-cv-00034
D. Ariz.Jul 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Carrillo previously brought claims against Pima Community College District (PCCD) and voluntarily dismissed a prior federal suit before bringing the current action.
- Carrillo moved to alter or amend the Court’s prior dismissal of his claims, arguing for reconsideration based on new evidence and legal error under Rule 59(e).
- Carrillo claimed PCCD's actions after the dismissal of his earlier case established new facts not previously available, thus exempt from claim preclusion/res judicata.
- The Court had dismissed Carrillo’s case on grounds including res judicata and failure to state sufficient facts for his claims under Title IX and related state torts (defamation, tortious interference).
- Defendant PCCD’s response to the Rule 59(e) motion was not considered by the Court, as per local rule, and the Court evaluated only Carrillo’s filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) | New evidence post-prior case warrants exemption from claim preclusion. | Cases arise from same facts; preclusion applies. | Dismissal stands; new facts not distinct enough. |
| Legal Standards under Title IX | Title IX retaliation covers his claims under Jackson v. Birmingham. | Title IX doesn't cover accused's participation. | Claims not covered; dismissal appropriate. |
| Adequacy of Pleadings | Alleged facts show deliberate indifference, defamation, tortious acts. | Allegations conclusory, lack sufficient facts. | Not enough to state a claim; no reconsideration. |
| Standard for Reconsideration (59e/60b) | Clear error, manifest injustice, and extraordinary circumstances exist. | No grounds under Rule 59(e) or 60(b). | No basis for reconsideration; motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (sets standard for relief under Rule 59(e) and 60(b), including abuse of discretion)
- Lawlor v. National Screen Service, 349 U.S. 322 (1955) (res judicata does not bar later claims based on new facts arising after the first lawsuit)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (retaliation claims are actionable under Title IX if tied to sex discrimination)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (defines clear error standard)
- Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2005) (sets criteria for evaluating claim preclusion/common nucleus of facts)