Tadeusz Bohdziun v. Florida Lake County , 143 F. App'x 288 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 12, 2005
No. 05-11752 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00317-CV-OC-10-GRJ
TADEUSZ BOHDZIUN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FLORIDA LAKE COUNTY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 12, 2005)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tadeusz Bohdziun appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his civil
complaint, which was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The district court
determined that his claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In the instant
lawsuit, Bohdziun sued Florida Lake County (“the County”), alleging that the
County had refused to issue him a building permit, denied him access to his
property, and permitted the owner of a nearby lot to trespass on his property, and
thus he was entitled to just compensation for the County’s temporary regulatory
taking of his property. On appeal, Bohdziun argues that res judicata is
inapplicable in his case because his prior federal lawsuit was not adjudicated on the
merits, as: (1) the district court dismissed it without a jury trial, in violation of the
Seventh Amendment; and (2) this Court, and the Supreme Court, refused
jurisdiction of his appeals. He further contends that res judicata is inapplicable
because the parties in this case were not identical to the parties in his 1999 federal
case, as there, he sued the County officials in their individual capacities, and here,
he sued the County government. Furthermore, he argues that the cause of action in
both suits was not the same because his 1999 federal cause of action was reverse
condemnation for a permanent taking, but here, he was seeking to recover
possession and obtain a building permit, due to a temporary taking. He also argues
that: (1) the district court’s dismissal of his complaint violated his Seventh
Amendment right to a jury trial; and (2) the County’s motion to dismiss was
untimely.
Res judicata is a legal determination that we review de novo. Jang v. United
2
Technologies Corp., 206 F.3d 1147, 1149 (11th Cir. 2000). An action is barred by
prior litigation if “all four of the following elements are present: (1) there is a final
judgment on the merits; (2) the decision is rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those in privity with them, are identical in both suits;
and (4) the same cause of action is involved in both cases.” Ragsdale v.
Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999).
A dismissal with prejudice, except in some circumstances not relevant here,
constitutes a final adjudication on the merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “In
determining whether the prior and present causes of action are the same, we must
decide whether the actions arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact, or are
based upon the same factual predicate.” Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d
1183, 1187 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations, alterations, and citations omitted),
cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1016 (2003).
Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we discern no
reversible error. Bohdziun previously filed actions against the County in state
court, a court of competent jurisdiction. His claims arose out of the same nucleus
of operative fact, and were decided on the merits. Bohdziun’s claims are thus
barred by res judicata. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3