The Colorado Supreme Court advised on narrow legal grounds that a former Denver deputy sheriff was not entitled to a federal civil liability claim separate from his original state lawsuit contesting his termination.

The Denver Sheriff Department fired Franklin Gale in January 2015. At the time, Gale was a deputy sheriff and head of the Downtown Detention Center. The department alleged that Gale had violated its regulations and career service rules, including an act of dishonesty. Gale countered that the dismissal was retaliation for his union activities.

Denver’s Career Service Board, which oversees the Office of Human Resources, upheld the termination. After Gale sued in both state and federal court alleging violations of his constitutional rights to free speech and free association, those cases were ultimately dismissed or decided in the board’s favor.

The Colorado Supreme Court weighed in solely on the grounds of deciding claim preclusion, or whether parties are allowed to litigate or relitigate claims that should have been decided in earlier proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit asked the high court for its opinion after Gale filed a civil liability claim federally based on an alleged deprivation of rights that was separate from his state court lawsuit.

In writing for the court, Justice Richard L. Gabriel noted that the claim preclusion question “requires a court to determine whether the claim at issue in a second proceeding is the same claim that was or that could have been brought in the first proceeding.”

Gabriel pointed out that the two cases Gale relied on, which seemed to provide justification for his separate federal liability claim, were decided on principles other than claim preclusion, including one plaintiff’s inability to assert the liability claim in earlier proceedings.

Therefore, the Supreme Court had not created an exception to the claim preclusion doctrine that would have allowed Gale’s federal liability claim separately from the original state lawsuit.

“We thus answer ‘no’ to the certified question before us,” Gabriel wrote.

The case is Franklin Gale v. City & County of Denver.