164077P.pdf   09/10/2018  Richard Elbert  v.  Gilbert Carter
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-4077
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, 
   see Elbert v. City of Kansas City, 667 F. App'x 881 (8th Cir. 2016). The 
   district court correctly ruled that four claims in plaintiff's second suit 
   were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because they involved claims 
   against the same parties from the first action, and plaintiff could have 
   brought the new claims in the first action; the remaining counts, in which 
   plaintiff brought claims arising from the same events involved in the 
   first suit, but against new defendants who were not parties to the first 
   suit, were properly dismissed as the claims arise out of the same raid, 
   and involve defendants who could have been joined in the first action; to 
   allow defendant to circumvent the court's ruling in the first action 
   refusing to allow an untimely motion for leave to amend by bringing a 
   second action against the new defendants would unreasonably burden the 
   parties and the court. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in 
   part. 
  
164077U.pdf   05/01/2018  Richard Elbert  v.  Gilbert Carter
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-4077
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Colloton and Murphy, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not err in finding that 
   six of plaintiff's counts were subject to dismissal in light of its 
   dismissal of the claims in plaintiff's prior lawsuit; however, three of 
   the claims against defendants in their individual capacities should not 
   have been dismissed under the doctrine of claim preclusion as the 
   defendants in these counts, who were not named in the earlier action, were 
   not in privity with the defendants in that matter; Judge Colloton, 
   concurring in part and dissenting in part.