Sack v. St. Francis Hosp.
| Decision Date | 29 November 1993 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
The Plaintiff David Lee Sack appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint in which he alleged that the Defendants St. Francis Hospital and various hospital employees violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment by taking his blood without his consent, and that the Defendants were negligent by treating him with indifference while he was confined to the hospital. The Defendants sought dismissal for the reasons that they were not state actors and no Constitutional violations occurred. After a United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be granted, the parties filed numerous motions and briefs which initially resulted in the dismissal of the action. However, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma later vacated the dismissal and rescheduled for oral argument. Prior to the oral argument, the district court was informed that a related case filed by Mr. Sack had been adjudicated in a different venue. Consequently, the district court dismissed Mr. Sack's § 1983 claims based on res judicata and collateral estoppel and refused to consider the remaining state law negligence claim pursuant to the Supplemental Jurisdiction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We affirm.
Mr. Sack was involved in an automobile accident that resulted in the death of the driver of the other vehicle. Mr. Sack was injured in the accident and was thereafter transported to the Defendant St. Francis Hospital. While at the hospital, a police officer instructed a nurse to take blood from Mr. Sack as he had probable cause to believe that Mr. Sack was intoxicated. The nurse extracted the blood despite apparent protestations by Mr. Sack. Subsequently, Mr. Sack pleaded guilty to second degree murder and knowingly possessing an Oklahoma driver's license with a photograph of a person other than the named person.
Because Mr. Sack has appealed pro se, we construe his claims liberally. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.). In so doing, we have determined that the primary thrust of his appeal is that his Constitutional rights were violated because his blood was removed prior to his arrest in contravention of Oklahoma state law. We find that this issue is precluded from review by this panel pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case." Murdock v. Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah and Ouray Reservation, 975 F.2d 683, 686 (10th Cir.) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (citation and footnote omitted)). In the Tenth Circuit collateral estoppel requires that the following four criteria be met:
"(1) the issue previously decided is identical with the one presented in the action in question, (2) the prior action has been finally adjudicated on the merits, (3) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication, and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is raised had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action."
Id. at 687 (citations omitted).
Prior to commencing the action that is the subject of this appeal, Mr. Sack filed a similar § 1983 complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma alleging that his civil rights were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blixseth v. Credit Suisse AG
... ... Flynn, Attorney at Law, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, for Plaintiff. David Jason Lender, Kevin Francis Meade, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York, NY, Thomas Ray Guy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, ... tribal assets, and the stock 129 F.Supp.3d 1206 it issued would have been worthless."); Sack v. St. Francis Hosp., 1993 WL 55955, at *2, 989 F.2d 508 (10th Cir. March 1, 1993) (unpublished) ... ...