Cain v. State of Ark., 84-1358
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Citation | 734 F.2d 377 |
Docket Number | No. 84-1358,84-1358 |
Parties | Dr. John W. CAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE OF ARKANSAS and Arkansas State Podiatry Board, Appellees. |
Decision Date | 15 May 1984 |
Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
Dr. John W. Cain appeals pro se from the District Court's 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. He alleges that his license to practice podiatry in Arkansas was revoked in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Cain seeks reinstatement of his license and damages in excess of one million dollars. 2
Appellant's argument that revocation of his podiatry license was "cruel and unusual punishment" is without merit. We agree with the District Court that because the revocation proceedings were entirely civil, the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable. See Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 664-68, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1408-10, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977); see also Verner v. State of Colorado, 533 F.Supp. 1109, 1118 (D.Colo.1982), aff'd, 716 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir.1983) ( ).
We also agree that Cain is not entitled to proceed on his Fourteenth Amendment claims. Cain previously challenged the revocation of his license in the Arkansas state courts. Cain v. Arkansas State Podiatry Examining Board, 275 Ark. 100, 628 S.W.2d 295 (1982). The present suit involves the same parties and the same occurrence as the state action. We see no reason why Cain could not have litigated his present claims in the state-court system had he sought to do so in timely fashion. Under Arkansas law, it appears that Cain would be barred by res judicata from filing another action in state court challenging the license revocation. See, e.g., Benedict v. Arbor Acres Farm, Inc., 265 Ark. 574, 579 S.W.2d 605, 607 (1979) ( ). Cain's state-court judgment has the same preclusive effect in the federal court as that judgment would have in Arkansas courts, even though his Sec. 1983 claims were never actually litigated in state court. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). Cain's claim for reinstatement of his license based on violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights is therefore barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Cain's claim for damages against the State of Arkansas and its agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). He points out that the Amendment's words cover only suits against a state by citizens of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lundeen v. Rhoad
...Eighth Amendment applies only to convicted persons, see Rosario v. Brawn, 670 F.3d 816, 820–21 (7th Cir.2012); Cain v. State of Arkansas, 734 F.2d 377 (8th Cir.1984) (physician's argument that civil revocation of his podiatry license was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendme......
-
Cain v. Webster, 15585
...experience in litigation. Mullen v. Renner, supra. See Cain v. Scott, 782 F.2d 1050 (8th Cir.1985); Cain v. State of Arkansas and Arkansas State Podiatry Board, 734 F.2d 377 (8th Cir.1984); Cain v. Arkansas State Podiatry Examining Board, 275 Ark. 100, 628 S.W.2d 295 (1982); Cain v. Hershew......
-
Cain v. Buehner and Buehner, s. 17933
...Cain v. Hershewe, 760 S.W.2d 146 (Mo.App.1988); Cain v. Scott, 782 F.2d 1050 (8th Cir.1985); Cain v. State of Arkansas and Arkansas State Podiatry Board, 734 F.2d 377 (8th Cir.1984); Cain v. Arkansas State Podiatry Examining Board, 275 Ark. 100, 628 S.W.2d 295 (1982); Cain v. Cain, 546 S.W.......
-
Crutchfield v. Holcomb, Case No. 4:11-cv-00034
...deportation proceedings are not criminal and do not constitute punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment); Cain v. Arkansas, 734 F.2d 377, 378 (8th Cir. 1984) (holding the Eighth Amendment inapplicable to revocation of a podiatry license because the proceedings were entirely civ......