Higgins v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 29 September 1989
• Citation: 551 So.2d 1050
• Parties: Robert L. HIGGINS v. Gordon HENDERSON, et al. 88-985.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 1050

551 So.2d 1050

Robert L. HIGGINS v. Gordon HENDERSON, et al.

88-985.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 29, 1989.

Robert L. Higgins, pro se.

J. Franklin Osment of Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Birmingham and Howard B. Warren, Gadsden, for Pruett, Turnbach & Warren.

Jimmy F. Carnes of Carnes & Carnes, Albertville, for appellees Gordon Henderson, John McKee and Carl Boatwright.

Charles R. Hare, Jr. of Gullahorn & Hare and William C. Gullahorn, Jr., Albertville, for appellees Charles R. Hare, Jr., Housing Systems, Inc., Jack Hammer, Phillip Kennedy, Patricia Pacek, HSI Management, Inc., Shirley Ryan, Willow Creek Associates and Willow Creek Apartments.

HORNSBY, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff, Robert L. Higgins, appeals from a judgment of the Marshall County Circuit Court dismissing his complaint on grounds of res judicata and failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The plaintiff has filed a "petition" and a brief in support of his appeal.

The facts of the case are easily stated. There was once a case styled Boman v. Willow Creek Associates, No. CV-81-C-1939-M, filed December 8, 1981, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. That case was a class action in which Higgins was apparently a class member. The district court entered a consent judgment disposing of that case. Higgins was incensed by that ruling, because certain plaintiffs were awarded damages and he was not.

Thereafter, in October 1986, Higgins filed an action in the same federal court entitled Robert Higgins v. Jeremiah Denton, U.S. Senator, No. CV-86-PT-1978-M. That action was subsequently dismissed with prejudice. Thereafter, Higgins appealed the dismissal of the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. That court affirmed the dismissal. That ruling ended the federal courts' involvement in this controversy.

Following the end of his federal court litigation, Higgins filed a complaint in Marshall County Circuit Court on July 1, 1989, naming numerous defendants and making numerous vague and incomprehensible allegations. He amended his complaint on December 7, 1988. The complaint remained unintelligible, though it seems that Higgins's chief complaint is that the previous litigation in Boman v. Willow Creek Associates was conducted in such a manner as to cause him harm. It is impossible to ascertain from reading the pleadings just what Higgins sees as a compensable injury.

The following are claims made by Higgins in his "Appellant's Brief":

"3. Rule 8(c) Affirmative defense, falsely res judicata.

Appellant submits:

11th US Court of Appeals, Reads in part:

Appellees motions to dismiss are granted.

"4. Appellees claim of res judicata further violated appellants under the following:

Appellant submits:

Appellant declared class member in federal suit CV 81 C 1939M, due to defendants violati [sic]

Appellants rights under US Housing Act of 1937, Section 8, existing housing, giving appellant standing as class member.

"Appellants rights further violated by defendants violating consent decree between plaintiffs and class members vs Willow Creek, in case CV 81 C 1939M, causing appellant to become a dual plaintiff

Consent decree reads in part: Page 1.

Consent decree named plaintiffs and class members and Willow Creek Associates and Helen Price:

Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 42 USC 1437f, 42 USC 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, to redress claims that Willow Creek Associates refused to renew plaintiffs lease in violation of the Section 8 existing housing program, 42 USC 1437f, and the applicable regulations and in violation of the lease between Willow Creek and its tenants.

Page 2, in part:

Whereas the parties are desirous of resolving this matter without the time and expense of further contested litigation, the parties having consented to the entry of the decree and that the decree fully protects the rights and all interests of all subclass members of Willow Creek Apartments.

Appellant submits:

Decree has not prevented further litigation, suit CV 81 C 1939 M, filed December 8, 1981, Willow Creek filed unlawful Detainer charging appellant with nonpayment of rent, October 1984, Appellant appealed to Marshall County Circuit Court November 1985. Appellant filed federal suit CV 86 PT 1978M, October, 1986, appealed to 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals January 1987. Appellant filed Marshall County Circuit case CV 88-106A, July, 1988 and amended December 7, 1988, appealed to Alabama Supreme Court April 1989.

Plaintiffs and class members did not agree to the entry of the consent decree, Appellant objected.

Decree did not protect the rights and interests of class members of Willow Creek Apartment as shown above Appellant falsely with nonpayment of rent, violating Code of Alabama 1975

Section 6-6-310 and with the cooperation of Marshall County Judge William Jetton, Appellant unlawfully evicted January 1985. Unlawful detainer charged nonpayment of rent but judgment charged refusing to renew lease, Appellants lease contained...