448 F. App'x 923
11th Cir.2011Background
- Kivisto, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims as barred by res judicata.
- In 2005, Robbins filed a Florida Bar complaint against Kivisto, who was licensed in Florida.
- In 2007 the Florida Bar filed disciplinary proceedings against Kivisto with the Florida Supreme Court.
- In 2008, before resolution, Kivisto filed Kivisto I in federal court asserting §1983, §1985, and RICO claims against multiple defendants.
- In 2010 the district court dismissed Kivisto I with prejudice for failure to state a claim; the Florida Supreme Court later disbarred Kivisto.
- Kivisto then sued again alleging fabrication of evidence during the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; the district court dismissed as res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second suit is barred by res judicata. | Kivisto claims the second suit arises from a new factual predicate not raised in Kivisto I. | District court held claims arise from same nucleus of operative facts and could have been brought earlier. | Yes; res judicata bars the second suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 383 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2004) (reviews de novo res judicata and collateral estoppel determinations)
- In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2001) (four elements of res judicata and 'could have been brought' concept)
- Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 1999) (final judgment on the merits; same cause of action and privity)