Callahan v. Board of Probation and Parole
| Decision Date | 02 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 720 S.W.2d 445 |
| Parties | Timothy Joseph CALLAHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Dick Moore, et al., Defendants-Respondents. 38157. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Timothy Joseph Callahan, pro se.
Before CLARK, C.J., and SHANGLER and NUGENT, JJ.
Timothy Joseph Callahan appeals pro se the granting of summary judgment in favor the Board of Probation and Parole and its former chairman, Dick Moore, hereinafter "the Board." Affirmed.
Plaintiff Callahan, an inmate, requested copies of certain letters contained in his parole file from the Board of Probation and Parole. Because the request was not honored, he filed a "suit for discovery" in which he sought to compel the Board to produce the letters. A statement in defendants' motion to dismiss apparently prompted Callahan to conclude that his probation file contained adverse material not disclosed to him. In response, he filed a second lawsuit against the Board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the second lawsuit, he sought money damages for alleged deprivation of constitutional rights based on the Board's failure to provide the information.
The trial court dismissed the first lawsuit with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court sustained the Board's motion for summary judgment in the second lawsuit on the basis of res judicata.
Appellant Callahan argues that the trial court erred in granting the Board's motion for summary judgment in his second lawsuit.
Collateral estoppel is an aspect or refinement of the general rule of res judicata. In re Estate of Laspy, 409 S.W.2d 725, 736 (Mo.App.1966). Res judicata precludes the same parties from relitigating the same cause of action, while collateral estoppel precludes the same parties from relitigating issues previously adjudicated. Nelson v. Missouri Division of Family Services, 688 S.W.2d 28, 30 (Mo.App.1985).
To determine whether to apply collateral estoppel, a court should consider the following criteria: 1) whether the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the issues presented in the present action; 2) whether the prior adjudication resulted in judgment on the merits; 3) whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior suit. Bi-State Development Agency v. Whelan Security Company, 679 S.W.2d 332, 335 (Mo.App.1984). We find those four criteria present in this case.
Here, both lawsuits present the identical issue: whether the Board was required to provide inmate Callahan with information from his parole file. He admits that both lawsuits arose from the same subject matter, and he bases both actions on the same case law. The essential difference between the two lawsuits was the requested relief: in the first, he sought production of information from his parole file; in the second, he sought money damages for failure to produce that information. Resolution of both actions depends upon determining his right of access to his parole file.
The first lawsuit resulted in an adjudication on the merits. The trial judge dismissed that action for failure to present a claim. Defendants' motions to dismiss provide the reasons for the dismissal. Pic-Walsh Freight Company v. Cooper, 618 S.W.2d 449, 453 (Mo.App.1981). The Board noted that Callahan principally relied upon Williams v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 661 F.2d 697 (8th Cir.1981). Williams held that the Missouri parole statutes then in effect created a liberty interest under the due process clause, requiring that prisoners be advised of adverse information contained in their parole files. In response, the Board pointed out that upon remand in 1982 the United States District Court dismissed the Williams case as moot because Missouri's amended parole statutes no longer implicate the due process clause.
The Board further noted additional reasons supporting dismissal: plaintiff, as member of the class...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burks v. COUNTY OF MILLER, MO., 89-4150-CV-C-9.
...the first action may have been substantially inconvenient to the party against whom estoppel is asserted. Callahan v. Board of Probation and Parole, 720 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Mo.App.1986). Under the facts of this case, the first prong of the Bresnahan test should address whether the identical is......
-
State v. Daniels
...(Mo.App.1985). Later cases include Geringer v. Union Electric Co., 731 S.W.2d 859, 865-66 (Mo.App.1987); Callahan v. Board of Probation and Parole, 720 S.W.2d 445, 445-46 (Mo.App.1986); Sunshine Realty Corp. v. Killian, 702 S.W.2d 95, 98-104 We believe the trial court was correct in applyin......
-
Greenlaw v. Smith, 92-1452EM
...for failure to state a claim as a final judgment on the merits for purposes of collateral estoppel. See Callahan v. Board of Probation & Parole, 720 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986); Pennyrich, Inc. v. Lawton-Byrne-Bruner Ins. Agency, 613 S.W.2d 473, 474 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). Greenlaw's s......