Herrion v. Children'S Hospital Natl. Medical Center
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55151
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Herrion alleges he was attacked, beaten, and restrained by three security officers while visiting his sister at Children's National on September 17, 2007; the officers are DC special police officers.
- Herrion previously sued Children's National in the DC Superior Court (Sept. 17, 2008) for assault and battery and false arrest, asserting vicarious liability against the hospital.
- Superior Court trial (Jan. 25–Feb. 2, 2010) resulted in a split verdict: false arrest for Children's National, assault and battery for Herrion, with $30,000 in compensatory damages to Herrion; final judgment entered February 2, 2010.
- Herrion filed this federal action on February 18, 2010 naming Children's National and the three Security Officers; he amended the complaint asserting two §1983 claims against the Officers and a malicious prosecution claim.
- The court determined Herrion had abandoned the malicious prosecution claim and that he was not pursuing official-capacity claims against the Security Officers; the remaining live claims were two §1983 claims against the Officers in their individual capacities.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on res judicata grounds; the court held that the Superior Court action and this action share a common nucleus of fact and the parties are in privity, thus precluding relief in this action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Herrion's §1983 claims against the Security Officers in their individual capacities barred by res judicata? | Herrion contends the actions are distinct; the Officers are sued individually, not as Children’s National's agents. | Superior Court judgment bars relitigation because the two actions arise from the same transaction and the Officers are in privity with Children's National. | Yes; res judicata bars the §1983 claims. |
| Should Herrion's malicious prosecution claim be maintained? | Argued as actionable under state and federal theories. | Claim abandoned by Herrion; must be dismissed. | Dismissed; claim conceded. |
| Are the §1983 claims against the Officers in the Officers' official capacities alive? | Herrion intended to sue in official capacity as well. | Official-capacity claims treated as against the government entity; not pursued here. | Dismissed; only individual-capacity claims remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; material facts must be in dispute)
- Capitol Hill Group v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC, 569 F.3d 485 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (transactional approach to identity of claims)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (official-capacity suits treated as against the government)
- Major v. Inner City Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 653 A.2d 379 (D.C. 1995) (privity concept in agency relationships for res judicata)
- Woodward & Lothrop v. Hillary, 598 A.2d 1142 (D.C. 1991) (concurrent jurisdiction over §1983 claims in state courts)
- Smith v. Jenkins, 562 A.2d 610 (D.C. 1989) (privity and res judicata considerations in DC courts)