Dodrill v. Ludt
| Decision Date | 11 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-3712,84-3712 |
| Citation | 764 F.2d 442 |
| Parties | Thomas DODRILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert LUDT, Niles Police Department; John A. Ross, Niles Police Department; and City of Niles, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Anthony V. Consoldane (argued), Mark E. Holko (argued), Warren, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
James J. Miscoky (argued), Douglas J. Neuman, Niles, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.
Before KENNEDY and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and TIMBERS, * Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Dodrill appeals from the District Court's order granting summary judgment to defendants in this suit brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. We reverse.
In May 1982, Dodrill was arrested for possession of marijuana in violation of a Niles, Ohio municipal ordinance. Dodrill's pretrial motion to prevent the marijuana from being introduced as evidence, due to an alleged fourth amendment violation, was denied. Dodrill was subsequently convicted by a jury in the Niles Municipal Court. The conviction was reversed, however, by the Ohio Court of Appeals which found Niles Ordinance 513.03, under which Dodrill was convicted, to be unconstitutional because it conflicted with the general laws of the state.
Dodrill then filed this Sec. 1983 action against Officer Ludt, Police Chief Ross and the City of Niles. The complaint alleged two causes of action: an illegal search and seizure in violation of Dodrill's fourth and fourteenth amendment rights, and the surreptitious placing of the marijuana in the car by Officer Ludt in violation of Dodrill's fourteenth amendment due process rights.
The District Court entered summary judgment against Dodrill on the basis of collateral estoppel. The District Court's opinion employs the term "res judicata." "Res judicata" has both a general and a specific meaning. In its general sense it refers to the preclusive effects of former proceedings. This broad category is divided into two more specific groups: "res judicata" in its narrower sense, and "collateral estoppel." Res judicata, in its narrow sense, refers to claim preclusion. Collateral estoppel refers to issue preclusion. Since the differences between the two require significantly different analyses, it is important to keep clear which is being discussed. The District Court's opinion, quite correctly, addressed issue preclusion, but gave it the broad "res judicata" label. For clarity we prefer the more specific term, "collateral estoppel." See generally Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 104 S.Ct. 892, 894 n. 1, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984).
The District Court found that under Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980), Dodrill was precluded from relitigating in a federal civil action a fourth amendment claim which had been finally determined in a state criminal proceeding and which state law would have precluded him from relitigating in state court. With respect to the due process claim, the court found that the jury in the prior case "rejected [Dodrill's] defense that the officer lied and that the marijuana was planted in his car." Therefore, the court, relying on Ohio law, 1 held that Dodrill was precluded from relitigating that issue as well.
On appeal, the parties limit their argument to whether the District Court properly interpreted Ohio law. Specifically in dispute is whether Ohio courts would apply collateral estoppel when a defendant in a prior criminal trial subsequently brings a civil suit against a police officer. Dodrill argues that the doctrine of collateral estoppel in Ohio includes a strict mutuality requirement which is not satisfied in such a situation. We need not decide this question of Ohio law. There is a threshold question which must be addressed and which compels us to find in Dodrill's favor.
The constitutionally based reversal of Dodrill's conviction presents us with an unusual situation. The issues that Dodrill now wants to litigate were fully litigated and firmly decided at the criminal trial. Dodrill did not challenge the fact-findings on appeal. The conviction was reversed on grounds having no bearing on the validity of the fact-findings. The reversal, however, vacates the judgment entirely, technically leaving nothing to which we may accord preclusive effect.
We have found no Ohio law on this specific point, but the general rule is that a judgment which is vacated, for whatever reason, is deprived of its conclusive effect as collateral estoppel. See Simpson v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co., 494 F.2d 850, 854-55 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 901, 95 S.Ct. 184, 42 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mason v. Texaco, Inc.
...673 F.2d 315, 318 (10th Cir.1982) (general remand by court of appeals allows district court to reconsider issues); Dodrill v. Ludt, 764 F.2d 442, 444 (6th Cir.1985). Thus, once a new trial is granted, preclusion does not extend "to any matter that is left open for further proceedings," but ......
-
Walsh v. Chevron Mining, Inc.
...LAW DICTIONARY (Desk ed. 2011-12) ("To vacate a ruling is to annul it, treating it as if it had not been issued."); Dodrill v. Ludt, 764 F.2d 442, 444-45 (6th Cir. 1985) ("When [Plaintiff] won his appealand the judgment was vacated, all such factual determinations were vacated with it, and ......
-
United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., AFL–CIO v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' Int'l Ass'n of U.S. & Canada, AFL–CIO
...estoppel. The same is true, of course, of a judgment vacated by a trial court.” (quotation marks omitted)); see also Dodrill v. Ludt, 764 F.2d 442, 444 (6th Cir.1985). The district court therefore correctly declined to give Jordan Interiors I estoppel effect in Frye.IV. Merits As this case ......
-
Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Husted, Case No. 2:15-cv-1802
...the Court finds that the Sixth Circuit's vacated opinion in N.A.A.C.P. v. Husted II is not binding, see, e.g. , Dodrill v. Ludt , 764 F.2d 442 (6th Cir.1985), Fleet Aerospace Corp. v. Holderman , 848 F.2d 720, 722 (6th Cir.1988), the Court is free to find the reasoning therein persuasive. S......