681 F. App'x 814
11th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff experienced a medical incident on September 19, 2010; Sgt. Hagan observed him and reported that plaintiff should be examined for possible PTSD.
- Plaintiff previously sued in Florida state court under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), alleging the City discriminated against him by regarding him as disabled (PTSD), and lost.
- Plaintiff then filed this federal suit alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, USERRA, and a § 1983 Buxton name‑clearing claim against the City and Sgt. Hagan.
- The City moved to dismiss, arguing the prior state judgment bars these federal claims under Florida res judicata rules.
- The district court dismissed the federal claims; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, applying Florida res judicata law to bar the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and USERRA claims, and affirming dismissal of the § 1983 Buxton claims on alternate grounds (failure to allege inadequacy of state remedies; qualified immunity for Sgt. Hagan).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida res judicata bars Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims | The federal § 12(b)(6) posture precludes taking judicial notice; claims differ from prior FCRA suit | Prior Florida judgment involved same facts/evidence (Sept. 19 incident, Hagan’s assessment, medical exams, City actions) so res judicata applies | Affirmed: claims barred—same causes of action under Florida res judicata because same facts/evidence support FCRA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act claims |
| Whether Florida res judicata bars USERRA claim | USERRA claim is distinct because it rests on military service discrimination | The USERRA allegations in this case rest on same factual claim that City regarded plaintiff as disabled from service‑connected PTSD, so identical to prior suit | Affirmed: USERRA claim barred—only non‑conclusory facts overlap with prior suit, so causes of action are the same |
| Whether § 1983 Buxton claim against City survives res judicata | Buxton claim alleges different stigma/publication/name‑clearing facts and may not be precluded | District court applied res judicata; City argues adequate state remedies exist and Buxton fails | Affirmed on alternate ground: plaintiff failed to allege absence of adequate state remedies; court declines to decide res judicata application |
| Whether § 1983 Buxton claim against Sgt. Hagan survives | Plaintiff alleges Hagan authored/stigmatizing memo and participated in publication and failure to provide a name‑clearing hearing | Hagan contends plaintiff didn’t allege inadequacy of state remedies; qualified immunity protects him | Affirmed: claim fails for failure to allege lack of adequate state remedies; alternatively Hagan entitled to qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir. 1985) (apply state res judicata principles when a federal court gives preclusive effect to a prior state judgment)
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 713 F.3d 1066 (11th Cir. 2013) (identifying test for identity of causes of action under Florida law)
- Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2007) (elements for ADA discrimination claims and parity between ADA and FCRA analysis)
- Cash v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2000) (Rehabilitation Act discrimination governed by ADA standards)
- Cotton v. Jackson, 216 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2000) (Buxton/name‑clearing § 1983 claims require inadequacy of state remedies)
- McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994) (state remedies must be inadequate before § 1983 procedural due process claim arises)
- Bussinger v. City of New Smyrna Beach, Fla., 50 F.3d 922 (11th Cir. 1995) (procedural due process claims not absolutely foreclosed; adequacy of state remedies must be assessed)
- Buxton v. City of Plant City, Fla., 871 F.2d 1037 (11th Cir. 1989) (establishing the Buxton name‑clearing § 1983 context)