LaDrena Thomas v. City of Jacksonville, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and Mike Williams. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-15056

Date Filed: 12/06/2016

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15056
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cv-00776-BJD-PDB
LADRENA THOMAS,
as personal representative of the estate of
Davinian D. Williams, deceased,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,
JACKSONVILLE SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
MIKE WILLIAMS,
in his official capacity as Sheriff of the Consolidated City
of Jacksonville and Duval County, Florida,
Defendants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 6, 2016)

Case: 16-15056

Date Filed: 12/06/2016

Page: 2 of 5

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The City of Jacksonville (the City) appeals the district court’s denial of its
motion to enjoin Ladrena Thomas from pursuing certain amended claims in state
court. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
I
On May 9, 2012, a Jacksonville police officer shot Davinian D. Williams six
times during a traffic stop. The shots killed Williams. Thereafter, Thomas
commenced this action in Florida state court, seeking damages on behalf of
Williams’s children. Thomas’s complaint raised state and federal claims against
the City and other parties.
The City removed the action to federal court, and the defendants requested
final summary judgment. The district court however granted only partial summary
judgment, allowing Thomas to proceed on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the
police officer who killed Williams and on certain state law claims against the
officer. The parties subsequently settled the § 1983 claim, and the district court
remanded the action to state court.
On remand, the state court considered as a threshold issue the preclusive
effects of the district court’s partial summary judgment order. The state court held
that the order has no such effects on the state court proceedings in this action:
2

Case: 16-15056

Date Filed: 12/06/2016

Page: 3 of 5

[N]either res judicata nor collateral estoppel bars this
[c]ourt from reconsidering the federal court’s rulings,
because [such] doctrines require the element of
“subsequent action.” That element is missing in the
present case, where there is but a single action that was
removed to federal court and then remanded to this
[c]ourt.
Following this decision, Thomas sought to amend her complaint to reallege with
additional specificity certain state law claims against the City for which the district
court granted summary judgment. The City consented to Thomas filing the
amended complaint but reserved its right to move for dismissal of the complaint.
The City then filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, arguing that the amended
claims are barred by the district court’s partial summary judgment order. The state
court denied the motion.
After the state court denied the City’s motion to dismiss, the City returned to
the district court and requested that the court enjoin Thomas from pursuing her
amended claims in state court. The district court denied the City’s request, leading
to this appeal.
II
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of the City’s
request for an injunction. Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co. v. Bersin Bagel
Grp., LLC, 817 F.3d 719, 724 (11th Cir. 2016). The City contends that, under the

3

Case: 16-15056

Date Filed: 12/06/2016

Page: 4 of 5

All Writs Act and the relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act, the district
court abused its discretion in declining to enjoin Thomas. We disagree.
The All Writs Act allows federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). “This enables the federal courts to
safeguard not only ongoing proceedings, but potential future proceedings, as well
as already-issued orders and judgments.” See Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co.,
817 F.3d at 725 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Anti-Injunction
Act circumscribes the authority granted to federal courts by the All Writs Act. Id.
The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits a federal court from enjoining “proceedings in a
[s]tate court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary
in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. §
2283. “An injunction halting a state court proceeding is proper only if it qualifies
for one of the Anti-Injunction Act’s exceptions,” such as the relitigation exception.
See Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co., 817 F.3d at 725. And in light of
federalism concerns, “we are obliged to construe the Act’s exceptions narrowly.”
Id.
“An injunction under the relitigation exception is appropriate where the state
law claims would be precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). “When determining whether res judicata applies,
4

Case: 16-15056

Date Filed: 12/06/2016

Page: 5 of 5

federal courts look to the law of the state in which they sit.” Id. “Any doubt
regarding whether the requirements of res judicata have been met will be resolved
against interference with the state court proceeding.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). “[A] federal court may enjoin state court proceedings only if preclusion
is clear beyond peradventure.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the City argues that the relitigation exception is implicated and an
injunction is necessary to “protect the res judicata effects” of the district court’s
partial summary judgment order. But as the state court found on remand, res
judicata does not apply because the district court’s order was issued in this action.
In Florida, “there is no question of res judicata” when a ruling from “the same suit,
and not a new and different one, is involved.” Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano,
801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001). The district court was well within its discretion to
deny the City’s request for an injunction.1 See Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co.,
817 F.3d at 725–26.
AFFIRMED.

1

Moreover, to the extent the City asserts that the district court abused its discretion
because res judicata principles militate in favor of an injunction, the City’s argument is
unavailing. Cf. Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co., 817 F.3d at 725 (“[W]e are obliged to
construe the [Anti-Injunction] Act’s exceptions narrowly.” (emphasis added)).
5