the one involved in the prior litigation; (2) that the issue has been actually litigated in the prior litigation; and (3) that the determination of the issue in the prior litigation has been a critical and necessary part of the judgment in that earlier action. Rabo Agrifinance, 583 F.3d at 353. Further, “[t]he parties to the suits need not be completely identical, so long as the party against whom estoppel applies had the full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous lawsuit.” Id. Although usually an affirmative defense, collateral estop-pel may be raised sua sponte by the district court, particularly if both actions were brought in courts of the same dis trict, as is the case here. United Home Rentals, Inc. v. Tex. Real Estate Comm’n, 716 F.2d 324, 330 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); see also Meador v. McFaddin, 172 F.3d 869,
holding that a court may sua sponte take judicial notice of its docket recognizing that in the interest of judicial economy res judicata may properly be raised by a district court sua sponte particularly where both actions are brought in the courts of the same district holding that a court can raise the issue of res judicata sua sponte in order to affirm a grant of summary judgment holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal recognizing that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to serve after notice to the plaintiff