United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 08-1067
PAUL S. GIRAGOSIAN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
FREDERICK RYAN and TOWN OF ARLINGTON, MA,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Baldock,* and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Dean Carnahan for appellant.
Edward M. Marlenga for appellees.
November 10, 2008
*
Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. Appellant Paul Giragosian owned
and operated a gun shop in Arlington, Massachusetts for
approximately thirty-one years. In March 2007, Arlington’s Chief
of Police, Frederick Ryan, revoked and forfeited appellant’s
licenses to carry and sell firearms. Subsequently, appellant filed
a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in federal district court alleging that
Ryan and the Town of Arlington violated his rights under the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted appellees’
motion to dismiss.
The issues before us on appeal are (1) whether
appellant’s § 1983 claims are barred by res judicata, and
(2) whether the district court erred by converting appellees’
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm on the basis
of claim preclusion.1
I.
In addition to selling firearms at his gun shop in
Arlington, Massachusetts, appellant conducted training sessions on
the use of firearms. In January 2007, while appellant was training
a customer to use a handgun, the customer intentionally shot
himself in the head, dying as a result of the wound.
1
Appellant also argues the district court erred in ruling
that he failed to state a cause of action under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments. We do not address this issue, however,
because we hold that appellant’s federal action is barred by the
doctrine of res judicata.
-2-
On the same day of the incident, the Arlington Police
Department conducted an investigation and concluded that appellant
was not at fault for the customer’s suicide. One day later,
appellee Frederick Ryan, Arlington’s Chief of Police, suspended
appellant’s licenses to carry and sell firearms, pursuant to
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 140, pending further
investigation by the Arlington Police Department and the Middlesex
County District Attorney’s Office. Ryan also requested that the
United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(“ATF”) investigate appellant’s business for any potential
violations of federal law.
Appellant subsequently challenged the suspension of his
licenses in Massachusetts state court. In March 2007, after the
Arlington Police Department and the Middlesex District Attorney
completed their investigations confirming that appellant was not at
fault for the customer’s suicide, the Cambridge District Court
granted appellant’s request to vacate the license suspensions.
Rather than reinstating the licenses, Ryan sent a letter
to appellant revoking appellant’s licenses to carry firearms and
forfeiting his dealer licenses. Ryan’s letter listed several
reasons for the revocations and forfeitures, including, but not
limited to, (1) failure to report stolen firearms, (2) failure to
undergo a firearms safety instructor course mandated by the
Massachusetts state court following a similar customer suicide in
-3-
2002, and (3) various violations of state and federal law found
during the ATF investigation requested by Ryan.2
In April 2007, appellant filed a § 1983 action in federal
district court alleging Ryan and the Town of Arlington violated his
Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
Appellant sought reinstatement of his firearms licenses pursuant to
Massachusetts law and damages under § 1983. One day later,
appellant filed a separate action in state court also seeking
reinstatement of his firearms licenses.
In May 2007, as the state and federal actions proceeded
simultaneously, appellant filed a motion in federal district court
for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin the state court
from ruling until the conclusion of the federal case. Appellant
argued that the state court judge “greeted Defendant Ryan with an
excess of cordiality,” demonstrating the state court’s “bias and
favoritism” towards Ryan. The district court denied appellant’s
motion.
In June 2007 the state court refused reinstatement of
appellant’s licenses, finding “sufficient grounds to conclude that
2
The ATF report noted that appellant (1) manufactured ten
firearms without a manufacturing license, (2) failed to contact the
FBI for a background check prior to the sale of six firearms, (3)
failed to report the sale of multiple handguns to three
individuals, and (4) failed to properly document the gun shop’s and
appellant’s personal inventory of firearms.
-4-
the decision of [Ryan] in revoking [appellant’s] firearms licenses
was reasonable and not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of
discretion.” See Giragosian v. Ryan, No. 07-10730 (Mass. Dist. Ct.
June 7, 2007). Following the state-court’s ruling, a federal
magistrate judge requested supplemental briefing from the parties
regarding the state-court judgment’s effect on appellees’ pending
motion to dismiss. Appellees’ argued in their supplemental
memorandum that the state-court judgment barred appellant’s federal
cause of action pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata (both
issue and claim preclusion). Appellant argued the federal district
court should ignore the state-court judgment because of the state
court judge’s lack of impartiality and numerous errors of law.
In August 2007, the federal magistrate judge recommended
the district court grant appellees’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. The magistrate judge ruled (1) issue preclusion barred
the federal district court from reexamining whether Ryan’s actions
were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, (2) the
post-deprivation review process available in state court provided
appellant adequate process, and (3) qualified immunity shielded
Ryan and the Town of Arlington from suit. The district court
rejected the magistrate judge’s recommendation as to qualified
immunity. The district court ruled that the federal magistrate
judge relied on information outside the four corners of the
complaint in finding qualified immunity. Thus, that issue could
-5-
only be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. The district
court, however, agreed with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that
appellant failed to “state a cause of action for a violation of due
process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
or Fourth Amendment rights.” Accordingly, the district court
granted appellees’ motion to dismiss.
II.
The issues we address on appeal concern the legal
sufficiency of appellant’s complaint. Our review, therefore, is
de novo. See Torromeo v. Town of Freemont, 438 F.3d 113, 115 (1st
Cir. 2006). We, like the district court, assume the truth of all
well-pled facts and give appellant the benefit of all reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom. See Alvarado Aguilera v. Negrón, 509
F.3d 50, 52 (1st Cir. 2007).
A.
We first consider whether appellant’s § 1983 action is
barred by the doctrine of res judicata. “Disposition of [a]
federal action, once [a] state-court adjudication is complete, [is]
governed by preclusion law.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293 (2005). “Under the full faith and
credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, a judgment rendered in a state
court is entitled to the same preclusive effect in federal court as
it would be given within the state in which it was rendered.” In
re Sonus Networks Inc., 499 F.3d 47, 56 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing
-6-
Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81
(1984)). Therefore, we look to Massachusetts law to determine the
preclusive effect of the state-court judgment. Id.
In Massachusetts, res judicata encompasses both claim
preclusion and issue preclusion. Id. (citing Kobrin v. Bd. of
Registration in Med., 832 N.E.2d 628, 634 (Mass. 2005)). Claim
preclusion prevents the relitigation of all claims that a “litigant
had the opportunity and incentive to fully litigate . . . in an
earlier action.” Id. Massachusetts evaluates three elements under
the doctrine of claim preclusion: “(1) the identity or privity of
the parties to the present and prior actions; (2) identity of the
cause[s] of action; and (3) a prior final judgment on the merits.”
McDonough v. City of Quincy, 452 F.3d 8, 16 (1st Cir. 2006). When
assessing the second element of claim preclusion, Massachusetts
courts find “[c]auses of action [to be] identical if they ‘derive[]
from the same transaction or series of connected transactions.’”
Id. (quoting TLT Const. Corp. v. A. Anthony Tappe & Assoc., 716
N.E.2d 1044, 1052 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999)).
While Massachusetts’ case law does not directly address
the relevance of the order in which parallel actions are filed, the
general rule is that “when two actions are pending which are based
on the same claim, or which involve the same issue, it is the final
judgment first rendered in one of the actions which becomes
conclusive in the other action . . ., regardless of which action
-7-
was first brought.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 14, cmt.
a (1982); see also Blair v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 181 F.3d
832, 838 (7th Cir. 1999) (“When the cases proceed in parallel, the
first to reach judgment controls the other, through claim
preclusion (res judicata).”); Hogue v. Royse City, 939 F.2d 1249,
1255 (5th Cir. 1991) (“[B]ecause a later-filed claim can be
preclusive of an earlier-filed claim, simultaneous filing of
multiple claims in different forums based on the same cause of
action will not avoid the application of res judicata.”).
While parallel litigation may force a court to “recognize
the claim- and issue-preclusive effects of a state-court judgment,
. . . federal jurisdiction over an action does not terminate
automatically on the entry of judgment in the state court.” Exxon
Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293 (internal quotation omitted). Application
of res judicata “should be addressed from the perspective of
fairness and efficient judicial administration since the doctrine
of claim preclusion is not applied rigidly where such interests
would not be served.” Tinkham v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 699 N.E.2d
1255, 1258 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998).
With such concerns in mind, we proceed to consider the
applicability of claim preclusion to the present case.3 Following
3
While the district court dismissed appellant’s suit on
alternate grounds, we focus our discussion on claim preclusion.
See Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 2008) (“In reviewing
a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, ‘we are not wedded to the [district]
court’s rationale and may affirm an order of dismissal on any basis
-8-
the revocations and forfeitures of his various licenses, appellant
chose to pursue relief in both state and federal court. Of course,
appellant could have pursued all of his claims in a single suit in
either forum. In his federal complaint and subsequent memoranda in
opposition to appellees’ motion to dismiss, appellant requested the
federal court exercise pendent jurisdiction over appellant’s state
claim (the review for reasonableness of the license revocations
pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140 § 131(f) and § 122). Appellant
also admitted at oral argument that he could have filed his § 1983
claim in state court. Accordingly, we employ Massachusetts’ three
part test to determine whether claim preclusion applies. See
McDonough, 452 F.3d at 16.
All three elements required for claim preclusion under
Massachusetts law are easily satisfied here. First, the identity
of the parties in the state and federal actions are the same. See
id. Second, the facts described in both the state and federal
complaints are identical, leaving no doubt that the two causes of
action “derive[] from the same transaction or series of connected
transactions.” Id. In other words, the only transaction at issue
in both the state and federal actions is Ryan’s revocation and
forfeiture of appellant’s licenses. Third, prior to the conclusion
of the federal proceeding, the state court issued a “final judgment
made apparent from the record.’” (quoting McCloskey v. Mueller, 446
F.3d 262, 266 (1st Cir. 2006))).
-9-
on the merits” when it determined that Ryan reasonably revoked
appellant’s firearms licenses. Id.
Appellant appears to have recognized the potential
problem with pursuing simultaneous actions in state and federal
court, as he requested a TRO from the district court enjoining a
possible state-court judgment. Appellant similarly requested the
state court delay its decision until the conclusion of his federal
action. At the very least, appellant understood that a federal
court would not be able to reinstate his licenses, under state law,
if the state court first rendered its own decision.
In support of his TRO, appellant argued he was concerned
about bias because of the state court judge’s cordial reception of
Ryan at the initial state-court proceeding. Such a slight and
subjective concern does not warrant disregard for a prior, valid,
state-court judgment. We have already rejected the notion that
“‘distrust of state courts . . . would justify a limitation on the
preclusive effect of state judgments.’” Willhauck, v. Halpin, 953
F.2d 689, 705 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting Migra, 465 U.S. at 84).
Instead, “notions of comity, the need to prevent vexatious
litigation, and a desire to conserve judicial resources” guide our
analysis. Migra, 465 U.S. at 84.
Appellant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his
§ 1983 claim in state court. See Mulrain v. Bd. of Selectmen, 944
F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 1991) (federal court dismissed case noting
-10-
the plaintiff could have raised both his § 1983 and state law
claims in state court). Alternatively, appellant could have
pursued relief solely in federal court. See Mancuso v. Kinchla,
806 N.E.2d 427, 439 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (state court dismissed
case noting that both state and federal claims could have been
brought in federal court). Permitting appellant to litigate his
claims in federal court at this juncture would frustrate the
purposes of claim preclusion, which are to “protect ‘against the
expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserv[e]
judicial resources, and foste[r] reliance on judicial action by
minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.’” Taylor v.
Sturgell, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008) (quoting Montana v. United
States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1979)).
Because appellant voluntarily proceeded in both forums,
he is now subject to the consequences of claim preclusion. No
unfairness attends this result as “the splitting of [appellant’s]
claims was voluntary” and appellant was “fully aware of them.”
Hayes v. Town of Orleans, 660 N.E.2d 383, 387 (Mass. App. Ct.
1996). We hold, therefore, that appellant’s § 1983 claims against
Ryan and the Town of Arlington are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.
B.
Appellant argues the district court improperly converted
his motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without
-11-
providing adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. When
ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a district court is
generally limited to considering “facts and documents that are part
of or incorporated into the complaint.” Trans-Spec Truck Serv.,
Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524 F.3d 315, 321 (1st Cir. 2008). These
limitations, however, are not absolute. A district court may also
consider “documents incorporated by reference in [the complaint],
matters of public record, and other matters susceptible to judicial
notice.” In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 12, 20
(1st Cir. 2003). If the district court relies on other material
outside the complaint, not subject to the qualifications listed
above, it must convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for
summary judgment. Trans-Spec Truck Serv., 524 F.3d at 321. Before
such a conversion occurs, however, parties must have a “‘reasonable
opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a
motion.’” Clorox Co. P.R. v. Proctor & Gamble Commercial Co., 228
F.3d 24, 31 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)).
Conversion is improper if it “would come as a ‘surprise’ or be
‘unfair’ to the party against whom judgment is rendered.” Id.
(citing Chaparro-Febus v. International Longshoreman Ass’n, Local
1575, 983 F.2d 325, 332 (1st Cir. 1992)).
Appellant argues the district court improperly considered
materials outside of the complaint in ruling on his motion to
dismiss. Appellant contends the district court should not have
-12-
considered, absent a summary judgment hearing, (1) the ATF report
outlining appellant’s violations of law, and (2) appellant’s
rebuttal to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We need not consider whether
the district court properly referenced these documents, however,
because we have dismissed appellant’s claims on the basis of res
judicata. The only materials necessary to support this ruling are
the documents pertaining to the state-court judgment against
appellant.
A court may consider matters of public record in
resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. In re Colonial
Mortgage, 324 F.3d at 15-16. Matters of public record ordinarily
include “documents from prior state court adjudications.” Boateng
v. InterAmerican Univ., Inc., 210 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir. 2000).
Further, use of the state-court judgment is not a “surprise” or
otherwise “unfair.” Appellant was aware the federal magistrate
judge was considering the state-court documents and he was given an
opportunity to present material pertinent to the documents’ effect
on his federal action. Thus, consideration of the state-court
judgment in this case is entirely proper.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is affirmed.
-13-