Cain v. State of Ark., 84-1358

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Citation734 F.2d 377
Docket NumberNo. 84-1358,84-1358
PartiesDr. John W. CAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE OF ARKANSAS and Arkansas State Podiatry Board, Appellees.
Decision Date15 May 1984

Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

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 He alleges that his license to practice podiatry in Arkansas was revoked in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.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) (Eighth Amendment does not apply where loss of license is full extent of possible punishment).

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) (prior decree bars a subsequent suit involving the same subject matter as that determined or which could have been determined in an earlier action between the same parties). 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
5 cases
  • Lundeen v. Rhoad
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • January 7, 2014
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 27, 1989
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 25, 1992
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • October 4, 2011
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT