Thomas Euteneuer v. Arnold Guerrero , 140 F. App'x 917 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                      [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-15009
    July 28, 2005
    Non-Argument Calendar
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    ________________________              CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 03-14294-CV-DLG
    THOMAS J. EUTENEUER,
    ANNE C. LOTIERZO,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    versus
    ARNOLD GUERRERO,
    CARLITO ARROGANTE,
    SCOTT LAPOLLA,
    JILL CIELO,
    JANE DOES, I-II,
    COLLEEN CARR,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    _________________________
    (July 28, 2005)
    Before BLACK, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    On July 19, 2000, Thomas Euteneuer and Anne Lotierzo filed a complaint
    against Arnold Guerrero, Carlito Arrogante and others under the Freedom of
    Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 
    18 U.S.C. § 248
    . On February 26, 2001, the
    district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
    upon which relief could be granted. The court gave the plaintiffs fourteen days to
    file an amended complaint, which they declined to do. On March 26, 2001 after
    the fourteen day period had elapsed, the district court entered an order of dismissal.
    The plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s order of February
    26. On January 7, 2002, this Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the
    complaint as to Arnold Guerrero and Carlito Arrogante.
    Two years after this Court’s ruling, the plaintiffs filed another complaint
    against Arnold Guerrero, Carlito Arrogante, Scott Lapolla, Jill Cielo, Jane Doe I,
    and Jane Doe II asserting the same claims under the FACE Act as well as state
    claims for assault and battery. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs’
    present lawsuit against Guerrero and Arrogante was barred due to res judicata and
    dismissed the complaint against those two defendants. Upon review, we affirm
    that decision for the reasons set out in the district court’s order.
    As to the other defendants, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had
    2
    failed to state a claim under the FACE Act and dismissed the complaint. The
    claims that the plaintiffs now assert against the new defendants are the same claims
    that were dismissed against Guerrero and Arrogante, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
    12(b)(6), in the plaintiffs’ previous lawsuit. After reviewing the record and the
    pleadings, we conclude that the district court was correct to dismiss these same
    claims against the new defendants. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the
    complaint against the remaining defendants for the reasons set out in the district
    court’s order.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-15009; D.C. Docket 03-14294-CV-DLG

Citation Numbers: 140 F. App'x 917

Judges: Black, Carnes, Per Curiam, Pryor

Filed Date: 7/28/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023