Crisler et al v. Sedgwick County, Kansas et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 8 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Monti L. Belot on 9/20/2012. Mailed to pro se party Larry Duane Crisler & Joyce Elaine Billingsley by regular mail. See order for details. (aa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

LARRY CRISLER and
JOYCE BILLINGSLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEDGWICK COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No.

12-1318-MLB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on defendants’ motions to
dismiss and for summary judgment on the basis of res judicata. (Docs.
6, 8).

The motions are fully briefed and ripe for decision.

7, 9, 10).
I.

(Docs.

Defendants’ motions are granted for the reasons herein.

Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, filed this action on

August 28, 2012, against Sedgwick County and three of its employees.
The complaint is twelve pages long but includes an additional 234
pages of exhibits, including excerpts from the Constitution, the
United States Code, Kansas statutes and various publications.

The

claims contained in the complaint are difficult, if not impossible,
to discern. However, it appears that plaintiffs are seeking some sort
of tax exempt status on their real property and list complaints which
occurred in 1985, 1994 and 2004.

The complaint also references a

prior action involving the same claims filed in 2011.

That case was

dismissed with prejudice by Judge Rogers and affirmed by the Tenth
Circuit.

In the prior action, an almost identical twelve-page complaint
was filed against the same defendants, without the inclusion of the
several hundred pages of exhibits.
definite

statement

which

was

Defendants moved for a more

granted

by

the

magistrate

judge.

Plaintiffs then submitted a response that included more than 300 pages
of various statutes, regulations and articles.

Defendants moved to

dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(e) and 41(b). Judge
Rogers

held

that

the

response

did

not

address

the

matters

in

defendants’ motion for a more definite statement and that the amended
complaint did not state a federal claim against defendants.

Judge

Rogers dismissed plaintiffs’ amended complaint pursuant to Rules 41(b)
and 12(e).
Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit.

The

Circuit held that dismissal was warranted under Rule 41(b) and that
plaintiffs’ complaint was vague and ambiguous.
filed July 31, 2012, case no. 12-3020 (Doc. 30).

Order and Judgment
Plaintiffs filed

this case on August 28, 2012.
Defendants now move for dismissal and/or summary judgment on the
basis of res judicata.
II.

Summary Judgment Standards
The rules applicable to the resolution of this case, now at the

summary judgment stage, are well-known and are only briefly outlined
here.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) directs the entry of

summary judgment in favor of a party who "show[s] that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

An issue is “genuine” if sufficient evidence exists so that a rational
-2-

trier of fact could resolve the issue either way and an issue is
“material” if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper
disposition of the claim.

Adamson v. Multi Community Diversified

Svcs., Inc., 514 F.3d 1136, 1145 (10th Cir. 2008).

When confronted

with a fully briefed motion for summary judgment, the court must
ultimately determine "whether there is the need for a trial–whether,
in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can
be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be
resolved in favor of either party."
477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
judgment.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

If so, the court cannot grant summary

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

III. Analysis
Res judicata is an affirmative defense that “encompasses two
distinct barriers to repeat litigation: claim preclusion and issue
preclusion.” Park Lake Res. L.L.C. v. USDA, 378 F.3d 1132, 1135 (10th
Cir.2004). Claim preclusion applies if three elements exist: (1) a
judgment on the merits in an earlier action, (2) identity of parties
in both suits, and (3) identity of the cause of action in both suits.
King v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 117 F.3d 443, 445 (10th Cir. 1997).
“Collateral estoppel, or, in modern usage, issue preclusion, means
simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined
by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated
between the same parties in any future lawsuit.”

Schiro v. Farley,

510 U.S. 222, 232 (1994).
Defendants assert that all three elements of claim preclusion
have been met in this case.

Plaintiffs, in their response, make no

attempt to contradict the arguments raised by defendants.
-3-

Rather,

plaintiffs ramble on and state that the Tenth Circuit panel of judges
who affirmed Judge Rogers’ decision had “their hands tide [sic].”
(Doc. 10 at 1).
Turning to the elements, there was a judgment on the merits in
the previous case and that judgment was upheld by the Tenth Circuit.
See Thompson v. Kan. Dept. of Corr., No. 07-3045, 2007 WL 2070303
(10th Cir. July 20, 2007)(the Tenth Circuit held that a prior
dismissal for failing to comply with the court’s orders satisfies the
requirement of the first element). The last two elements are also met
in this case as the parties are identical and the statements set forth
in the complaints are also virtually identical.

Therefore, the court

finds that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata.
IV.

Conclusion
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissal are

granted.

Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed, with prejudice.

The

court will not entertain a motion for reconsideration in this case.
Plaintiffs are warned that if they file another case identical
or similar to this one, they may be subject to sanctions.
Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Fed. R.

Plaintiffs will not be permitted to

file any case in this court in forma pauperis without specific
authorization of the district judge assigned.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this

20th

day of September 2012, at Wichita, Kansas.

s/ Monti Belot
Monti L. Belot
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-