TRUJILLO v. HUDSON COUNTY MEDICAL DEPT.

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 4/11/13. (jd, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EDUARDO TRUJILLO,

:

Civil Action No. 13-2165 (DMC)

Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.

HUDSON COUNTY MEDICAL DEPT.,
Defendant,

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs submission of a civil complaint and
,
2
his application to proceed j forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 and 1-1.) The complaint asserts that
Plaintiff a state prisoner, has been denied medical care for his cancer. (ECF. No. 1, at 4-5.)
Plaintiff does not designate the relief he is seeking, but his statement of facts indicates that his
deepest concern [is] dying.” Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff attached to his complaint a copy of the order
issued by Judge Lisa Rose of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division. j4. at 7. The
order indicates that Plaintiff commenced a state action with the Law Division in 2012 raising
claims identical to those at bar and seeking medical treatment for his cancer. Id. The order
indicates that, on January 7, 2013, Judge Rose granted Plaintiff the requested relief. jçj.
1
Plaintiff s claims in this Court are barred as duplicative to those already adjudicated in
the state action presided over by Judge Rose. çç Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox
Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163-64 (3d Cir. 2010) (“In certain circumstances, where a federal
Plaintiff also attached to his complaint a prison form indicating that, as of February 27.
20 13, the correctional facility ordered the required medication and was waiting for receipt of the
same in order to administer it to Plaintiff (ECF No. 1, at 8.)

suit follows a state suit, [judicially created] doctrine[s] prohibits the district court from exercising
jurisdiction”); In re Madera, 586 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2009) (judicially created doctrines
prohibit lower federal courts “from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court
judgments”); In re Knapper, 407 F.3d 573, 580 (3d Cir. 2005) (federal courts cannot exercise
jurisdiction of a claim “if the federal claim is inextricably intertwined with the state adjudication,
meaning that federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was
wrong”); see also Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (the preclusive effect of a prior
judgment is defined by claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which are collectively referred to

as the “res judicata” doctrine); Expert Electric, Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1232 (2d Cir.)
(“The doctrine of res judicata.

.

.

was established as a means to promote legal economy and

certainty”), cctt. denied, 434 U.S. 903 (1977).
Here, Plaintiff— being the prevailing party in his state action

—

had a full and fair

opportunity to litigate his claims; accordingly, relitigation of his claims in this Court is barred.

S.c Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1979) udicially-created doctrines protect
against “the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and
foster reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions” while

precluding parties from bringing claims they have already had a full and fair opportunity to
litigate). Therefore, the instant matter must be dismissed.
However, the Court is mindful of the gist of Plaintiffs application which, seemingly,
seeks enforcement of Judge Rose’s order. If so, the complaint would be best construed as a
mandamus application intended for filing in Judge Rose’s case.

Thornton v. Ridgewood, 17

N.J. 499 (1955) (“the plaintiffs complaint entailed a claim for relief in the nature of mandamus
2

requiring [state] officials to enforce the [order issued] against [them]. Such an action may be
instituted when it appears that [these] officials are derelict in this respect”) (citation omitted).
Therefore, the Court will construe the complaint accordingly and direct the Clerk to serve this
Opinion, the accompanying Order, and Plaintiff’s complaint upon the Law Division for further
actions by Judge Rose, in the event Judge Rose finds any further action appropriate.
No filing fee will be assessed against Plaintiff in connection with this matter in light of
Plaintiff’s erroneous filing of his complaint with this Court instead of a mandamus application
with the Law Division.
An appropriate Order follows.

United States
Dated:

2013

3

Judge