78 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 1996), 95-2376, Duchene v. Plunkett
|Docket Nº:||95-2376, 95-2799.|
|Citation:||78 F.3d 588|
|Party Name:||Mary Jane DUCHENE, Natural Guardian, Heir and Sole Issue of Jane D. Duchene, Deceased, Appellant, v. John PLUNKETT, Dakota County Coroner; James Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||February 29, 1996|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA8 Rule 28A, FI CTA8 IOP and FI CTA8 APP. I regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Submitted Feb. 15, 1996.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
In this consolidated appeal, Mary Jane Duchene appeals the District Court's 1 judgment in favor of defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action, and its order striking without prejudice two motions filed after she had appealed the dismissal to this court. We affirm.
In November 1986, Duchene's mother died at the Wedgewood nursing facility in Dakota County, Minnesota. Even though the certificate of death stated that the cause of her mother's death was metastatic lung cancer, Duchene has maintained throughout numerous legal proceedings that her mother's treating physician and others murdered her mother by withdrawing her prescription for insulin. Duchene commenced this action in May 1994 as the "natural guardian, heir and sole issue of Jane D. Duchene, deceased," against Dakota County Coroner John Plunkett and County Attorney James Backstrom. The gravamen of her complaint was that Plunkett and Backstrom covered up the circumstances of her mother's death by failing to conduct an adequate investigation or to prosecute her mother's murderers.
The District Court concluded that collateral estoppel barred Duchene's claims and dismissed the case with prejudice. Subsequently, the District Court ordered stricken Duchene's post-judgment motions, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to rule on them after Duchene had filed her notice of appeal. Duchene's appeals from these two orders were consolidated.
Because a prior state court decision receives the same preclusive effect in federal court as it would receive in state court, Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1738...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP