Malady v. Crunk, 89-2381
| Decision Date | 27 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2381,89-2381 |
| Citation | 902 F.2d 10 |
| Parties | James E. MALADY, Jr., Appellant, v. Tom CRUNK, Bob Stewart, J.C. Skaggs, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James E. Malady, pro se.
Dan J. Crawford, Kennett, Mo., for appellees.
Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
James E. Malady, Jr., appeals pro se from a final order entered in the District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for damages against a former Missouri sheriff and two county representatives. Malady v. Crunk, No. 88-2331C(6) (E.D.Mo.1989) (orders filed May 5 and July 25, 1989). Malady alleged that the sheriff arrested and jailed him without a warrant and that the warrant issued the next day was not supported by probable cause. The district court dismissed the action against the representatives because their direct involvement was not alleged and against the sheriff because Malady's subsequent conviction, upon a guilty plea, collaterally estopped the action. We do not reach the collateral estoppel question and instead affirm the order of the district court because Malady's conviction of the offense for which he was arrested is a complete defense to a Sec. 1983 action asserting that the arrest was made without probable cause.
This court has in earlier decisions viewed similar issues under a collateral estoppel analysis. See, e.g., Grant v. Farnsworth, 869 F.2d 1149, 1151 (8th Cir.1989) (); Davis v. City of Charleston, 827 F.2d 317, 321 & n. 3 (8th Cir.1987) (); Tyler v. Harper, 744 F.2d 653, 655 (8th Cir.1984) (collateral estoppel); accord Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270-72 (9th Cir.1990) (). However, it is not necessary that we reach the difficult collateral estoppel issues in deciding the present case.
In Cameron v. Fogarty, 806 F.2d 380 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1016, 107 S.Ct. 1894, 95 L.Ed.2d 501 (1987), the Second Circuit, in a thorough opinion, concluded that even though a Sec. 1983 claim of arrest without probable cause was not collaterally estopped by a subsequent conviction, "long-established common-law principles" applicable to Sec. 1983 operated to defeat the action. Id. at 386.
[T]he common-law rule ... was and is that the plaintiff can under no circumstances recover if he [or she] was convicted of the offense for which he [or she] was arrested.... This rule "represents the compromise between two conflicting interests of the highest order--the interest in personal liberty and the interest in apprehension of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horne v. Crozier, 19536
...reckless driving. A plea of guilty forestalls any later claim in a § 1983 action that an arrest lacked probable cause. Malady v. Crunk, 902 F.2d 10, 11-12 (8thCir.1990). See generally Broughton v. State, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310, 315 (1975), cert. denied 423 U.S. 929, ......
-
Southerland v. City of N.Y.
...n. 2 (10th Cir.1994); Hoffman v. Moss, 929 F.2d 692 (Table), 1991 WL 41503, at *1 (4th Cir.1991) (unpublished opinion); Malady v. Crunk, 902 F.2d 10, 11 (8th Cir.1990); Walker v. Schaeffer, 854 F.2d 138, 143 (6th Cir.1988); see also King v. Goldsmith, 897 F.2d 885, 886 (7th Cir.1990) (assum......
-
Odom v. Kaizer
...arrest was made. E.g., Williams v. Schario, 93 F.3d 527, 528–29 (8th Cir.1996) ( “Williams ”) (published per curiam); Malady v. Crunk, 902 F.2d 10 (1990) (“Malady ”). In so concluding, the Eighth Circuit adopted the policy reasons for not allowing a § 1983 remedy expressed by the Second Cir......
-
Radloff v. City of Oelwein, C02-2029.
...the resulting conviction is a defense to a § 1983 action asserting that the arrest was made without probable cause.'" Malady v. Crunk, 902 F.2d 10, 11-12 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoting Cameron v. Fogarty, 806 F.2d 380, 389 (2d Cir.1986)). In this case, the plaintiff pleaded guilty to supplying al......