Briggs v. Newberry County School Dist.

• Decision Date: 09 June 1992
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 8:92-0179-3.
• Citation: 838 F. Supp. 232
• Parties: Frances W. BRIGGS, Plaintiff, v. The NEWBERRY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Vance O. Johnson, in his individual capacity; Mitchell Strickland, in his individual capacity; Donna Elmore, in her individual capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

838 F. Supp. 232

Frances W. BRIGGS, Plaintiff, v. The NEWBERRY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Vance O. Johnson, in his individual capacity; Mitchell Strickland, in his individual capacity; Donna Elmore, in her individual capacity, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 8:92-0179-3.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina.

June 9, 1992.

James Lewis Cromer, Columbia, SC, for plaintiff.

Kenneth Lendrem Childs, Mary Jane Turner, Allen D. Smith, Childs & Duff, P.A., Columbia, SC, for defendants.

ORDER

GEORGE ROSS ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This case arises from the nonrenewal of Plaintiff's employment contract with the Newberry County School District in May 1990. Plaintiff, Frances W. Briggs, initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants, Newberry County School District, Vance O. Johnson, Mitchell Strickland, and Donna Elmore, alleging violations of her constitutional rights of free speech and procedural due process.

Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants terminated her employment in retaliation for her criticism of her supervisors, allegedly an exercise of her First Amendment right of free speech. In addition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to accord her procedural due process in the conduct of the pre-termination administrative hearing before the District Board of Education.

This matter is presently before the Court upon Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).¹ Defendants contend that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel preclude or bar Plaintiff's federal claims. The Court agrees that principles of claim preclusion prevent the litigation of Plaintiff's present claims and, therefore, grants Defendants' motion to dismiss.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The District first employed Plaintiff in 1984 as the Coordinator and Phase I Instructor in the Licensed Practical Nursing (LPN) program at its Vocational Center. During Plaintiff's tenure, district administration received numerous complaints about Plaintiff's lack of professionalism in her dealings with students, colleagues, and clinical site staff. Plaintiff's supervisors, the individual defendants in this case, also found Plaintiff to be uncooperative and insubordinate, and they believed her performance impacted negatively upon the LPN program. Because of the dissatisfaction with Plaintiff's job performance, Defendant Johnson, then the Superintendent of the District, recommended to the District Board of Education that Plaintiff's employment not be continued beyond the end of the 1989-90 school year.

Subsequent to the Superintendent's recommendation, Plaintiff requested and received a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing before the Board as provided by S.C.Code Ann. §§ 59-25-460, -470 (Rev.1990). At the hearing Plaintiff was afforded the right to be represented by legal counsel, the right to produce witnesses and other documentary evidence, and the right to cross-examine the District's witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board determined that the testimony and evidence demonstrated good and sufficient cause for nonrenewal and voted to uphold the Superintendent's recommendation.

On May 30, 1990, Plaintiff appealed the Board's decision to the circuit court of South Carolina pursuant to § 59-25-480. The circuit court examined the record of the Board hearing and concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's decision to accept Defendant Johnson's recommendation of contract nonrenewal. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to S.C.R.Civ.P. 59, raising for the first time the claims now asserted in this federal cause of action. On November 5, 1991, the state court issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion. No appeal to the state court decision was taken by Plaintiff. This action ensued.

DECISION AND ORDER

A. Judicial Notice May Be Taken Of The Prior Administrative And Judicial Proceedings

Fed.R.Evid. 201 provides that a court shall take judicial notice of adjudicative facts when requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information, when the judicially noticed fact is "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Facts subject to judicial notice may be considered by a court on a motion to dismiss. Dickinson v. Indiana State Election Bd., 740 F.Supp. 1376 (S.D.Ind.1990), rev'd on other grounds, 933 F.2d 477 (7th Cir.1991); Nejad v. United States, 724 F.Supp. 753 (C.D.Cal.1989). When entertaining a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata or collateral estoppel, a court may judicially notice facts from a prior judicial proceeding. Mehlar Corp. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 530 F.Supp. 85 (E.D.Mo. 1981) (dismissing an action on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the basis of res judicata).

The record of the prior administrative and state court hearings in this case is a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Accordingly, this Court takes judicial notice of the prior proceedings between the District and Plaintiff and, further, hereby considers those proceedings in ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss.

B. Preclusive Effect Must Be Afforded To The Prior State Judicial Proceeding If South Carolina Courts Would Afford That Proceeding Preclusive Effect

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the records or judicial proceedings of a state court "shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such state...." Section 1738 "does not allow federal courts to employ their own rules of res judicata in determining the effect of state judgments"; rather, it "commands a federal court to accept the rules chosen by the state from which the judgment is taken." Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 481-82, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1898, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). Further, the state court judgment is not required to follow a trial de novo to operate as a bar to subsequent actions; the judicial affirmance of an administrative decision is entitled to preclusive effect under § 1738. Kremer, 456 U.S. at 480 n. 21, 102 S.Ct. at 1896 n. 21. Therefore, this Court must analyze the law of South Carolina to determine whether the prior state court judgment affirming the Board's decision to nonrenew Plaintiff's employment contract operates as res judicata.

The doctrine of res judicata embodies two distinct preclusion concepts: (1) claim preclusion; and (2) issue preclusion. Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 376 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1327, 1329 n. 1, 84 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985); Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 77 n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 892, 894 n. 1, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). Claim preclusion refers to the preclusive effect of a judgment in foreclosing litigation of matters which should have been raised in an earlier suit, while issue preclusion refers to the effect of a judgment in precluding the relitigation of a matter actually litigated and decided. Id. In this case the Court does not need to consider the applicability of issue preclusion and, therefore, bases its decision upon the concept of claim preclusion.

In a case very similar to this one, Button v. Harden, 814 F.2d 382 (7th Cir.1987), the Seventh Circuit applied the rule of claim preclusion to bar a plaintiff's federal § 1983 claim based upon the First Amendment. In Button, a school board passed a resolution to dismiss Button, a tenured public school teacher. An evidentiary hearing was held, and a hearing officer found that the dismissal was warranted. Button then appealed to the Illinois state court, which affirmed his dismissal. After the state court affirmance, Button brought a § 1983 action alleging that he was fired in retaliation for exercising his right of free speech.

In holding that claim preclusion barred Button's federal claim because it could have been asserted before the state court, the Seventh Circuit noted that Button had two options following the administrative hearing. He could have filed an action in federal court, or he could have pursued his appeal in the state court. If he elected to pursue his state remedy, the Seventh Circuit noted, Button would be required to allege every ground for relief which the state court had authority to consider. 814 F.2d at 384. The Seventh Circuit held that Button, having chosen to go into state court, could have raised the First Amendment ground in that proceeding. If his dismissal had been in violation of the Constitution, the state court would have set it aside. Id. Consequently, the federal action was precluded by the previous judgment affirming Button's dismissal.

The Court finds Button to be persuasive in this case. As in Button, Plaintiff's dismissal could have been set aside by the circuit court if it had been in violation of her constitutional rights to free speech or procedural due process. See Kizer v. Dorchester County Voc. Educ. Bd. of Trustees, 287 S.C. 545, 340 S.E.2d 144 (1986) (teacher appeal wherein the court expressly considered and rejected a teacher's due process claims). Cf. S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-380(g)(1) (Rev.1986) (stating that a circuit court may reverse the decision of an administrative agency if the administrative conclusion or decision is in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions).

Plaintiff contends that Button is distinguishable on the ground that there is a critical difference between the law of South Carolina and the law of Illinois on the question of res judicata or claim preclusion. Based upon an examination of the law of each state, however, the Court concludes that the doctrines are very similar in the two jurisdictions. See Jimmy Martin Realty Group, Inc. v. Fameco Distrib., Inc., 300 S.C. 192, 386 S.E.2d 803 (Ct.App.1989); Wessinger v. Rauch, 288 S.C. 157, 341 S.E.2d 643 (Ct.App. 1986); Edwards v. City of Quincy, 124 Ill. App.3d 1004, 80 Ill.Dec. 142, 464...