Hill v. Corizon Health, Inc.
712 F. App'x 811
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kwame O. Hill, pro se, sued Corizon Health, KDOC, and multiple individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations tied to Coumadin treatment during incarceration (July 2013–March 2014).
- Hill previously filed a state-court action in Butler County alleging medical malpractice and gross negligence arising from the same treatment events; he later amended to add KDOC and characterized the amended complaint as involving the same basic events.
- Multiple defendants moved to dismiss in federal court, arguing the federal action was barred by res judicata based on the state-court litigation; the district court converted one motion to summary judgment and ultimately dismissed Hill’s federal claims on res judicata grounds.
- Hill’s appellate opening brief did not address res judicata; the appellees argued waiver of appellate review. The Tenth Circuit majority agreed Hill waived any challenge and affirmed.
- Two concurring opinions: one (Bacharach) emphasizes judicial neutrality and refusal to raise new grounds sua sponte; another (Hartz) contends the court should sua sponte correct clear legal and factual errors (missing judgments for some defendants; mistaken treatment of individual-capacity § 1983 claims as necessarily official-capacity), and would have reversed as to some defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill waived appellate review of the district court’s res judicata ruling | Hill did not address res judicata in opening brief; argued generally about lack of counsel and difference between malpractice and § 1983 claims (in reply) | Defendants: opening brief fails to challenge res judicata; issues not briefed are waived | Waived — majority: Hill’s opening brief did not raise res judicata so appellate review waived; replies too late |
| Whether the federal claims are precluded by res judicata (same claim/common nucleus) | Hill: claims are different (malpractice vs § 1983 deliberate indifference) — argued in reply only | Defendants: state action arose from same facts; state suit could have raised these claims | On merits (majority adopting district court): claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact; element satisfied |
| Whether all defendants in federal case are the same or in privity with parties who obtained final judgment on the merits in state court | Hill: (implied) some defendants were not adjudicated in state court; he contested aggregation | Defendants: state court dismissed claims against defendants; privity exists for some individuals with corporate/entity defendants | Dissent (Hartz): record does not show final judgments for Corizon or Nickelson; district court erred in finding judgments for them; majority did not address these errors due to waiver |
| Whether individual-capacity § 1983 claims are indistinguishable from official-capacity claims for res judicata/privity | Hill: sued some individuals in individual capacity (caption reflects this) | Defendants/district court: argued claims against individuals acting under color of state law are effectively official-capacity claims tied to KDOC | Dissent (Hartz): legal error — acting under color of state law does not convert individual-capacity claims into official-capacity suits; district court erred in treating Watson as sued only in official capacity |
Key Cases Cited
- Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2002) (issues not adequately briefed are waived)
- Anderson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 422 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2005) (failure to assert argument on appeal constitutes waiver)
- Planned Parenthood of Kan. & Mid-Mo. v. Moser, 747 F.3d 814 (10th Cir. 2014) (courts may raise issues sua sponte in exceptional circumstances)
- Margheim v. Buljko, 855 F.3d 1077 (10th Cir. 2017) (sua sponte review should be exercised sparingly)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se filings are liberally construed)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (courts should not assume advocacy role for pro se litigants)
- Satsky v. Paramount Commc’ns, Inc., 7 F.3d 1464 (10th Cir. 1993) (standards for reviewing claim preclusion)
- King v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 117 F.3d 443 (10th Cir. 1997) (res judicata precludes relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised)
- Brady v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 538 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 2008) (federal courts apply state preclusion law under full faith and credit statute)
- Winston v. State Dep’t of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 274 Kan. 396, 49 P.3d 1274 (Kan. 2002) (four elements for Kansas res judicata: same claim, same parties, claims that were or could have been raised, final judgment on the merits)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (distinction between personal-capacity and official-capacity § 1983 suits)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (personal-capacity § 1983 suits require action under color of state law)
- Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2002) (district court must determine that summary judgment is appropriate before entering judgment)