Simmons v. O'Brien

• Decision Date: 04 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-1173,95-1173
• Parties: David SIMMONS, Appellant, v. Mike O'BRIEN, Detective, Captain; William Turner, Lieutenant; Don Gault, Detective; Patrick Conway, Detective; M.J. Walsh, Detective; City of Overland, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1093

77 F.3d 1093

David SIMMONS, Appellant, v. Mike O'BRIEN, Detective, Captain; William Turner,

Lieutenant; Don Gault, Detective; Patrick

Conway, Detective; M.J. Walsh,

Detective; City of Overland, Appellees.

No. 95-1173.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 1995.

Decided March 4, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; Carol E. Jackson, Judge.

JoAnn Trog of St. Louis, Missouri, argued, for appellant.

Priscilla F. Gunn of St. Louis, Missouri, argued, for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

David Simmons appeals the district court's ¹ dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that defendants, officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, coerced his confession through the use of racial slurs and excessive physical force. Because the claims are barred by issue preclusion and should have been dismissed with prejudice, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

I.

On August 20, 1990, officers of the St. Louis police department questioned Simmons about the murder of Meredith Marshall, Simmons' girlfriend's mother, and the theft of Marshall's car. After several hours of questioning, Simmons made a videotaped confession. Following the videotaped confession, questioning continued for two more days, during which the police took more statements.

Prior to trial, on August 21, 1991, Simmons moved to suppress the confession and any other statements made to the police on the grounds that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. Simmons alleged that he was not specifically made aware of his Miranda rights; that the length and nature of the interrogation were inherently coercive given his education, background, and physical and mental condition; and that he was subjected to physical and psychological duress during the interrogation and the taking of his confession.

The trial court denied the motion to suppress on September 13, 1991. Following a jury trial on October 24, 1991, Simmons was found guilty of second degree murder and first degree burglary. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction and fifteen years for the burglary conviction. Simmons' petition for postconviction relief was denied. In his subsequent direct appeal, Simmons alleged procedural errors as grounds for reversal, but he did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence nor did he challenge the admission of the confession. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld both the conviction and the denial of postconviction relief. State v. Simmons, 865 S.W.2d 893 (Mo.Ct.App.1993).

Simmons then brought this § 1983 action seeking damages, alleging that defendants used excessive physical force, psychological duress, and racial slurs in coercing his confession. ² Specifically, Simmons contends that he was choked several times, kicked in the stomach, and punched in the face; that pins were continually stuck in his hands until he confessed; and that, when he would not confess, one officer threatened to "take this nigger somewhere in (sic) kill him." Further, Simmons maintains that the police repeatedly referred to him as "nigger" and that they told him they were trying to coerce his confession solely because he is an African-American.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants based on Heck v. Humphrey, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), holding that until a habeas court ruled on the validity of Simmons' conviction, a ruling on the excessive force and racial slurs claims would be premature. This appeal followed.

II.

As a threshold matter, we must determine whether Simmons' claim for damages is presently cognizable under § 1983. In Heck, supra, the Supreme Court held that where "judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction," id. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2372, a cause of action has not accrued unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated by a state court or called into question by a federal habeas court. Id. Where, however, "plaintiff's action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed." Id.

The Court offered an example of a § 1983 suit that should be allowed to proceed: suits for damages for allegedly unreasonable searches, even when such searches yielded evidence admitted at trial, resulting in conviction. Because of doctrines such as independent source, inevitable discovery, and, most importantly, harmless error, "such a § 1983 action, even if successful, would not necessarily imply that the plaintiff's conviction was unlawful," and thus the action should proceed. Id. at ---- n. 7, 114 S.Ct. at 2372 n. 7.

We believe that this reasoning should be extended to Fifth Amendment claims challenging the voluntariness of confessions. In Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), the Supreme Court held that, in terms of effect on trial, there was no qualitative distinction between the admission at trial of illegally seized evidence and the admission of involuntary confessions. Id. at 310, 111 S.Ct. at 1265. In applying harmless error analysis to a confession obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court noted:

The admission of an involuntary confession is a "trial error," similar in both degree and kind to the erroneous admission of other types of evidence. The evidentiary impact of an involuntary confession, and its effect upon the composition of the record, is indistinguishable from that ... of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment....

Id.

Because harmless error analysis is applicable to the admission at trial of coerced confessions, judgment in favor of Simmons on this § 1983 action challenging his confession will not necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his conviction. See Heck, --- U.S. at ---- n. 7, 114 S.Ct. at 2372 n. 7. Thus, Simmons' cause of action has accrued.

III.

At issue is whether Simmons' § 1983 claims are barred by issue preclusion because the excessive force and racial slurs claims were necessarily litigated and decided against Simmons at the state suppression hearing. We hold that they are.

A.

Under issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case." Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 414, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (citing Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 973, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979)); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982).

This preclusion principle is rooted in concerns of judicial economy. By precluding parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, issue preclusion acts to "relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication." McCurry, 449 U.S. at 94, 101 S.Ct. at 414 (citing Montana, 440 U.S. at 153-54, 99 S.Ct. at 973-74); see also University of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 798, 106 S.Ct. 3220, 3225, 92 L.Ed.2d 635 (1986) (noting that preclusion principles "enforce repose").

Of course, "central to the fair administration of preclusion doctrine" is the notion that a party will be bound only if it had "an adequate opportunity or incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the first proceeding." Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28 cmt. j. Only when a party has previously had such a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue does the benefits of preclusion outweigh the countervailing due process concerns present whenever a party is estopped from raising a claim. See Blonder-Tongue Lab., Inc. v. University of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 328-30, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 1442-43, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971).

This deference to prior adjudication extends not only to antecedent decisions of federal courts, but to those of the state courts as well. Under the federal full faith and credit statute,

judicial proceedings [of any court of any State] shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State....

28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1988). Thus, federal courts must give preclusive effect to state court judgments, and the scope of the preclusive effect is governed by the law of the state from which the prior judgment emerged. See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 896, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). This deference "promote[s] the comity between state and federal courts that has been recognized as a bulwark of the federal system." McCurry, 449 U.S. at 95-96, 101 S.Ct. at 415 (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45, 91 S.Ct. 746, 750-51, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971)).

Prior state court adjudications are given preclusive effect even in later federal § 1983 actions. In McCurry, the Supreme Court noted that, while § 1983 "alter[s] the balance of judicial power between the state and federal courts," McCurry, 449 U.S. at 99, 101 S.Ct. at 417, nothing in § 1983 or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to repeal or restrict the traditional doctrines of preclusion. Id. at 98-101, 101 S.Ct. at 416-18. The Court reasoned that the Civil Rights Acts were passed to allow "federal courts to step in where the state courts were unable or unwilling to protect federal rights," id. at 101, 101 S.Ct. at 418; to the extent that issue preclusion only applies where a party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first proceeding, the preclusive effect of state judgments is not...