Frier v. City of Vandalia

770 F.2d 699 (7th Cir. 1985)

What's Going On?

Plaintiff appeals from the district court's dismissal of his suit against Defendant, on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, in a case where Defendant allegedly had Plaintiff's cars towed without due process in violation of his constitutional rights.

Who's Who?

Plaintiff     :

Charles Frier – driver whose cars were repeatedly towed by Defendant after he parked them on narrow streets.

Defendant :

City of Vandalia, Illinois – municipal government.

Facts:

Plaintiff had repeatedly parked his cars on narrow streets in Defendant City of Vandalia, Illinois. At one point, Plaintiff had parked in a manner that forced others to drive on someone else's lawn to get around Plaintiff's car. Within one year, Defendant's police had garages tow four of Plaintiff Charles Frier's cars. Each time, Plaintiff refused to pay fees—sometimes only $10—to the garages for the return of his cars. Instead, Plaintiff filed three suits against Defendant and the garages in state court seeking replevin. One suit, seeking the return of two cars, was voluntarily dismissed when Plaintiff got his cars back. The other two suits were consolidated and litigated. The court declined to issue a writ of replevin, holding that the City had the right to remove cars from the street. Plaintiff then filed suit alleging that Defendant had not offered him a hearing before or after taking his cars in violation of the Due Process Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that it was the official policy of Defendant not to offer a hearing. The complaint, which sought $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court found that Plaintiff had notice of each tow. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue:

May a party bring the same cause of action against the same party twice?

Decision:

No. Defendant is entitled to prevail on the ground of claim preclusion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, a federal court must apply the state's law of claim preclusion to determine whether the disposition of a claim brought in state court precludes a subsequent suit on the same claim in federal court. Illinois recognizes the principles of claim preclusion, under which one suit precludes a second where the parties and the cause of action of both suits are identical. Causes of action are identical where they are based upon a common core of operative facts, even if they present different legal theories. Where claim preclusion applies, the first suit operates as a bar to a subsequent action as to any other admissible matter which was or might have been offered to sustain or defeat the claim or demand. Plaintiff had the opportunity to raise constitutional grounds as reasons for replevin against the City of Vandalia, which was a defendant in both state court actions below. Plaintiff also could have joined a constitutional claim for damages and declaratory relief to his demand for replevin. Therefore, Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. The replevin and § 1983 actions both involve the same common core of operative facts and the same transactions. Each claim asserted that the cars were unlawfully seized, and the same conduct of Defendant was attacked in both suits. Plaintiff's theory in the replevin actions contained the same elements that make up the due process theory. Finally, the fact that only two of the three replevin actions went to judgment does not prevent claim preclusion from applying because a defendant may invoke claim preclusion, when, in the first suit, the plaintiff litigated a subset of all available disputes between the parties. Because Plaintiff would have lost under the doctrine of claim preclusion in state court, he must lose under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 as well. Affirmed.

Basic Rule:

A suit is barred by claim preclusion when the parties and causes of action involved are identical to those of a prior suit.

Concurrence:

The majority applied the wrong analysis to this case. The majority should have reviewed the facts to determine whether Plaintiff's procedural due process claims would succeed against a motion for summary judgment. Because Defendant was entitled to summary judgment, the majority reached the correct result. Claim preclusion should not apply in this case because Plaintiff's procedural due process claim requires an entirely different factual showing than that required of the replevin actions.

Terms:

Claim preclusion :

Doctrine under which a party is barred from relitigating a cause of action after a valid and final judgment has already been rendered on that cause of action.

Replevin :

An action to recover personal property wrongfully taken or held by the defendant.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us