FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 17, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 18-1291
v. (D.C. No. 1:18-CV-01218-LTB)
(D. Colo.)
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Plaintiff Cedric Greene, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his complaint
by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. He claims that defendant
Logisticare Solutions acted negligently and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
by failing to provide him with timely transportation for appointments with his doctors.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously
that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted
without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under
the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R.
32.1.
The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s suit on the ground that it was barred under
the doctrine of claim preclusion. “[C]laim preclusion will prevent a party from
relitigating a legal claim that was or could have been the subject of a previously issued
final judgment.” MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir. 2005). It
requires “(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier action; (2) identity of the parties
in the two suits; and (3) identity of the cause of action in both suits.” Id. at 831. The
district court held that all three elements were satisfied in this case based on Plaintiff’s
prior suit against the same defendant in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada. See Greene v. Logisticare Solutions, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-00523-RFB-NJK, 2017
WL 1100902, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 21, 2017).
Plaintiff does not raise any meritorious challenge to this ruling. He appears to
argue that the Nevada judgment should not have preclusive effect because he sought to
transfer that case to another venue before judgment. But if there was any problem with
venue, he is not the one who could complain. “[P]laintiff, by bringing the suit in a
district other than that authorized by the statute, relinquished his right to object to the
venue.” Olberding v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 346 U.S. 338, 340 (1953). He also suggests that
he had some difficulty sending mail to the District of Nevada over the course of the
litigation. But he does not explain how that difficulty impeded his ability to pursue his
claims. As the district court in this case described, Plaintiff was permitted to file multiple
amended pleadings, received several extensions of time, submitted briefing in response to
Logisticare’s motions to dismiss, and participated in person at the hearing on
Logisticare’s request for dismissal. Finally, he incorrectly asserts that this court
2
authorized him to pursue this claim in Colorado because we granted his motion to
voluntarily dismiss his appeal from denial of an attempt to pursue this claim in the
District of Utah. But our order of dismissal (which said nothing about authorizing
anything other than the dismissal) could not possibly have any bearing on the preclusive
effect of a judgment from the District of Nevada in an entirely separate case.
We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. We DENY Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
3