Robinette v. Jones

• Citation: 476 F.3d 585
• Decision Date: 08 February 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06-1674.,06-1674.
• Parties: Ann ROBINETTE; Eric Robinette, Appellants, v. William JONES; Richard Fentiman; Tim Gassen; Joshua Landis; Merritt M. Beck, III; City of Centralia, Missouri, Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

476 F.3d 585

Ann ROBINETTE; Eric Robinette, Appellants, v. William JONES; Richard Fentiman; Tim Gassen; Joshua Landis; Merritt M. Beck, III; City of Centralia, Missouri, Appellees.

No. 06-1674.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 29, 2006.

Filed: February 8, 2007.

Stephen Sherman Wyse, argued, Wyse Law Firm, Columbia, MO, for appellants.

Michael G. Berry, argued, Michael G. Berry, L.L.C. Jefferson, MO, for appellees.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, SMITH and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

In this civil rights action, plaintiffs Ann and Eric Robinette appeal two orders in which the district court¹ dismissed several claims against the City of Centralia, its prosecutor and several of its police officers on the basis of collateral estoppel and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining claims. We affirm the district court's rulings.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 13, 2003, Ms. Robinette parked her car in the second of a series of five parallel parking spaces on Sneed Street near a community center in Centralia, Missouri. Signs reserving parking for police vehicles were posted next to the first, third, and fifth spaces, but not the second and fourth spaces. Centralia Police Officer William Jones ticketed Ms. Robinette for parking in a space reserved for police vehicles. The ticket set a court date of May 12, 2003, and contained a warning in all capital letters, stating, "YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT AT THE TIME SPECIFIED ON THIS CITATION OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE CITATION AS DIRECTED MAY RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE AND DRIVING PRIVILEGE AND MAY RESULT IN A WARRANT BEING ISSUED FOR YOUR ARREST."

Ms. Robinette missed the court date, and the court issued a warrant for her arrest. Officer Jones and Officer Richard Fentiman enforced the warrant at approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 7, 2003, arresting Ms. Robinette at her home. They took her to the police station, and her husband, Eric, followed. When Mr. Robinette arrived at the police station, he parked on Sneed Street in the first of the five spots reserved for police vehicles. Officer Jones instructed Mr. Robinette to move his vehicle, telling him that he would issue a parking ticket if he did not comply. Mr. Robinette admits that he "smart-mouthed" Officer Jones, who then issued him a parking ticket and again told him to move his car. Mr. Robinette momentarily forgot that he left the keys in the ignition, and, in that moment, Officer Jones contacted Officer Tim Gassen to request a tow truck. By the time the tow truck arrived, Ms. Robinette had been released. Officers Jones and Fentiman would not allow the Robinettes to interfere with the tow truck operator, to the point of physically restraining Ms. Robinette from approaching the tow truck driver.

On September 8, 2003, Centralia's attorney, Merritt Beck, dismissed the two parking tickets issued to the Robinettes. Later in 2003, the Robinettes filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Centralia, Beck, his law firm, and the police officers involved in the incidents, making claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law ("Robinette I"). In that case, the district court issued orders that dismissed the § 1983 claims against Beck on the basis of absolute prosecutorial immunity and all state law claims against him on the basis of state official immunity; dismissed all state law claims against Centralia on the basis of sovereign immunity; and dismissed all state and federal claims against Centralia Police Officers Jones, Fentiman, Gassen, and Joshua Landis, insofar as each was named in an official capacity, on the basis of sovereign immunity. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment in Robinette I, seeking to dispose of the remaining claims. While that motion was pending, the Robinettes voluntarily moved to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice. The defendants did not object, and the court granted the Robinettes' motion.

Within a few months, the Robinettes filed the instant lawsuit in Missouri state court against the same defendants, again asserting § 1983 claims and the same state law tort claims. The defendants removed the case to federal court. In a single order, the district court granted two motions to dismiss several of the claims against a number of the defendants on the basis of collateral estoppel, relying on the orders issued in Robinette I establishing the various immunity defenses. The defendants again moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. After allowing the Robinettes to file their response out of time, the district court found that the Robinettes failed to controvert any facts or legal arguments by the defendants and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, disposing of the remaining claims.² The Robinettes also filed a motion to reconsider, which the district court denied.

The Robinettes appeal the district court's dismissal order applying collateral estoppel and its summary judgment order. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Collateral Estoppel

We review a district court's dismissal order de novo. Prescott v. Little Six, Inc., 387 F.3d 753, 756 (8th Cir.2004). The application of collateral estoppel is a question of law that we also review de novo. Morse v. Comm'r, 419 F.3d 829, 833 (8th Cir.2005). The term "collateral estoppel" comprehends a variety of more specific doctrines including issue preclusion, the estoppel applicable here. In the Eighth Circuit, issue preclusion has five elements:

(1) the party sought to be precluded in the second suit must have been a party, or in privity with a party, to the original lawsuit; (2) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as the issue involved in the prior action; (3) the issue sought to be precluded must have been actually litigated in the prior action; (4) the issue sought to be precluded must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and (5) the determination in the prior action must have been essential to the prior judgment.

Anderson v. Genuine Parts Co., Inc., 128 F.3d 1267, 1273 (8th Cir.1997). The Robinettes dispute the fourth element, arguing that their voluntary dismissal of Robinette I prevented a "valid and final judgment" on the immunity issues that the district court ruled were precluded. The Robinettes rely on In re Piper Aircraft Distribution System Antitrust Litigation, in which we held, "[t]he effect of a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is to render the proceedings a nullity and leave the parties as if the action had never been brought." 551 F.2d 213, 219 (8th Cir. 1977).³ In response, the defendants cite Miller v. Norris, in which we held, "[a]lthough the dismissal was without prejudice, `an issue actually decided in a non-merits dismissal is given preclusive effect in a subsequent action between the same parties.'" 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir.2001) (quoting Pohlmann v. Bil-Jax, Inc., 176 F.3d 1110, 1112 (8th Cir.1999)) (emphasis in Pohlmann).

As Miller implies, the finality requirement for issue preclusion has become less rigorous. "[R]ecent decisions have relaxed traditional views of the finality requirement in the collateral estoppel context by applying the doctrine to matters resolved by preliminary rulings or to determinations of liability that have not yet been completed by an award of damages or other relief, let alone enforced." In re Nangle, 274 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A of the United Food and Commercial Workers, 913 F.2d 544, 564 (8th Cir.1990)) (internal quotation omitted). "`[F]inality' in the context of issue preclusion may mean little more than that the litigation of a particular issue has reached such a stage that a court sees no really good reason for permitting it to be litigated again." John Morrell, 913 F.2d at 563 (quoting Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Ref. Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir.1961)) (internal alteration omitted).⁴

In Robinette I, the district court had thoroughly analyzed and decided Beck's immunities on all claims, the immunities of the police officers in their official capacities on all claims, and Centralia's sovereign immunity from the state tort claims. Despite the subsequent voluntary dismissal of Robinette I, those immunity defenses were "resolved by preliminary rulings" and there is "no really good reason" to litigate them again. We therefore hold that the district court's orders in Robinette I were valid and final for the purposes of precluding further litigation between the parties on the issues that those orders decided.⁵

B. Summary Judgment

After the dismissal order, only the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Centralia and the § 1983 and state tort claims against the police officers in their individual capacities remained. The district court granted summary judgment to Centralia and the police officers on these claims. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Shanklin v. Fitzgerald, 397 F.3d 596, 602 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 807, 163 L.Ed.2d 636 (2005). We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. However, "the party opposing summary judgment may not rest on the allegations in its pleadings; it must `set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Honea, 458 F.3d 788, 791 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).

1. § 1983 Claims

a. Centralia

The district court granted summary judgment to Centralia on the Robinettes' claims of municipal liability under § 1983. The Robinettes assert first that Centralia had a custom or policy to display street signs without an enabling ordinance as arguably required by Centralia's city code. See Mo.Rev.Stat. § 300.130 (2003) (generally, the "Model Traffic Ordinance").⁶ The Robinettes do not identify any constitutional deprivation associated with this alleged infraction. Without...