Smith v. Sinclair

• Decision Date: 25 June 1976
• Docket Number: No. CIV-76-006-D.,CIV-76-006-D.
• Citation: 424 F. Supp. 1108
• Parties: Jerry Wayne SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Gary E. SINCLAIR, Deputy Sheriff, Kay County, Newkirk, Oklahoma, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma

424 F. Supp. 1108

Jerry Wayne SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Gary E. SINCLAIR, Deputy Sheriff, Kay County, Newkirk, Oklahoma, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV-76-006-D.

United States District Court, W. D. Oklahoma.

June 25, 1976.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jerry Wayne Smith, pro se.

Robert J. Petrick, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant Sixkiller.

John W. Raley, Jr., Ponca City, Okl., for defendants Sinclair and Linton.

Dale L. Astle, Ponca City, Okl., for defendant Albright Title & Trust.

ORDER

DAUGHERTY, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff has filed herein an Amended Complaint in which he contends that the defendants have committed acts which violate various Civil Rights Statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986. He asserts that jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4). Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment to plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The plaintiff has responded thereto and requests an evidentiary hearing on the Motions.

After examining the files and records herein together with the Opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Carroll James Miller and Jerry Wayne Smith, 532 F.2d 1335, decided April 1, 1976, it would appear to be undisputed that the Fourth National Bank in Wichita, Kansas, was robbed in the early morning hours of January 6, 1975. The plaintiff and one Carroll James Miller were stopped and arrested while they were driving south on Interstate Highway 35 in Kay County, Oklahoma, by the defendants herein. Defendant Gary Sinclair was a Deputy Sheriff for Kay County. Defendant Leon Pete Linton, was Chief of Police, Tonkawa, Oklahoma. Defendant Roger Sixkiller was an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper. Subsequent to the arrest a warrant to search the vehicle in which the plaintiff was traveling was issued by the State District Judge of Kay County, Oklahoma upon the affidavit of defendant Sinclair. The search revealed the Security Guard's hat from the bank, gun and glasses as well as a leather case which had been taken from the guard's pickup truck. The contents of the bank night depository, together with a briefcase containing wire similar to that used in the robbery were also found. In Case No. 75-41-CR-6, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, plaintiff together with Miller, was convicted on February 10, 1975, of charges contained in a two-count Indictment, alleging in Count I Robbery of said National Bank in Wichita, Kansas, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and in Count II the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Money and Securities in excess of $5000 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. On April 7, 1975, the plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 20 years on Count I and 10 years on Count II, to run concurrent. In its Opinion filed April 1, 1976, referred to above the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Thereafter, as a result of these same series of events in the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, Case No. CR-11521 the plaintiff was convicted after trial by jury on November 25, 1975, of one count of Aggravated Robbery, one count of Aggravated Kidnapping, and three counts of Kidnapping. He received a life sentence for the Aggravated Kidnapping and 15 years to life on the other convictions. All of his Kansas sentences were concurrent with each other and with the federal sentence.

It is in this context of incontrovertible facts that the plaintiff alleges that the defendants deprived him, and conspired to do so, of the following Civil Rights:

"(A) His right guaranteed by the Fifth, Fourteenth, and Fourth amendment, to be free from arbitrary denial of liberty without due process of law;

(B) His right, guaranteed by the fourth amendment to be free from illegal seizure of his person, papers, and effects;

(C) His right, guaranteed by the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendment, to not have false testimony used against him in a court of law."

The plaintiff can recover in this proceeding on the first two violations alleged only if he can prove an unconstitutional arrest, search and seizure. These issues were specifically litigated in plaintiff's federal trial and considered on direct appeal. Since the plaintiff appeared pro se with co-counsel in a subsequent Kansas trial it is reasonable to assume that he also unsuccessfully presented these same issues to the Kansas courts.

The principles of res judicata are applicable to suits under the Civil Rights Act. Spence v. Latting, 512 F.2d 93 (CA10 1975). The Civil Rights Statute was not designed to sponsor career litigants or permit duplicative efforts to prevail. This conclusion is required in the interest of judicial economy and the equity of protecting opposing parties, usually government officials, from vexatious duplicating litigation. Thistlethwaite v. City of New York, 362 F.Supp. 88 (S.D.N.Y.1973). The doctrine of issue preclusion prevents the relitigation in this suit of the issues concerning plaintiff's arrest and the subsequent search. Metros v. United States District Court for District of Colorado, 441 F.2d 313 (CA10 1971). These were precisely the same issues presented to the federal court in his bank robbery trial and directly determined by the court adversely to him. See Emich Motor Corporation v. General Motors Corporation, 340 U.S. 558, 71 S.Ct. 408, 95 L.Ed. 534 (1951); Hooper v. Guthrie, 390 F.Supp. 1327 (W.D.Pa.1975). Although the present defendants were not parties to that proceeding the plaintiff is nevertheless estopped from litigating those issues under all the circumstances here presented. As pointed out in Rachal v. Hill, 435 F.2d 59, 61 (CA5 1970), cert. denied 403 U.S. 904, 91 S.Ct. 2203, 29 L.Ed.2d 680 this is the modern trend of authorities:

"Although many states still honor the rule of mutuality of estoppel, the modern trend has been to discard the rule and preclude a party from relitigating an issue decided against him in a prior action, even if the party asserting the estoppel was a stranger to the prior action. See DeWitt v. Hall, 19 N.Y.2d 141, 278 N.Y. S.2d 596, 225 N.E.2d 195, 31 A.L.R.3d 1035 (1967). The federal rule comports with the modern trend and thus it is clear that the requirements of mutuality need not be met for collateral estoppel to be applied in an action presenting a federal question in the courts of the United States."

Therefore, it is the general rule that:

". . . a party who has had one fair trial and full opportunity to prove a claim and has failed in that effort, should not be permitted to go to trial on the merits of that claim a second time." Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419, 421 (CA3 1950), cert. denied 340 U.S. 865, 71 S.Ct. 87, 95 L.Ed. 632.

In discussing this question in Moran v. Mitchell, 354 F.Supp. 86, 89 (E.D.Va.1973) the court stated:

"A more serious objection raised by the plaintiff is that collateral estoppel cannot apply in this case because there is no mutuality of parties. Specifically it is asserted that the defendants in this action were only witnesses in the criminal proceedings, not parties. This argument, though superficially appealing, does not stand under close scrutiny. While a criminal action is brought in the name of the State, all of the law enforcement officers who worked toward the prosecution are, in essence, parties to the action. The litigation is, in a very real sense, between them and the defendant. Particularly is this so in a suppression hearing, where it is the conduct of the police officers which is directly attacked by the defendant, thus establishing the sort of advocacy that is normally associated with mutuality doctrine."

Since the application of collateral estoppel is no longer grounded upon the mechanical requirements of mutuality, the plaintiff cannot recover herein on the same underlying facts and legal contentions although he has added a conspiracy claim and asserted a violation of the Civil Rights Act. P.I. Enterprises, Inc. v. Cataldo, 457 F.2d 1012 (CA1 1972). A similar situation was presented in Willard v. United States, 422 F.2d 810 (CA5 1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 913, 90 S.Ct. 1714, 26 L.Ed.2d 76. There, in an action against the United States and F.B.I. Agents, the plaintiff, who was convicted of conspiracy and bank robbery, was seeking to recover $1,000,000 damages for alleged wrongs inflicted upon him by the F.B.I. Agents who questioned and obtained confessions from him concerning the bank robbery. His same complaint was also the basis of a Motion for a New Trial in the criminal proceedings. A hearing had been held on the Motion for New Trial in which the plaintiff had been represented by counsel and allowed to call witnesses in his behalf. After the evidentiary hearing the court found that there was no basis for his allegations and denied his Motion for a New Trial. The subsequent action for damages was brought in forma pauperis and the District Court dismissed it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The appeals court affirmed stating:

"Although we need not put it categorically in such terms the factual background from the prior proceedings gained added significance through notions akin to collateral estoppel. The issues were in practical effect identical. Once determined between essentially the same parties, re-examination is not permitted.

In Collins v. United States, 206 F.2d 918, 921 (CA8 1953) the court stated:

"It must be borne in mind that what the law guarantees to an individual in the resolution of any justiciable question is legally satisfactory process not personally satisfying result. And where such processes have once been called into play and have operated to produce a particular result on the merits of the question, under existing jurisdiction, a litigant, whether civil or criminal, has had all that he is entitled generally to demand from the law as a matter of right. Hence, as previously indicated a trial court may, even where the bar of res judicata is not technically applicable, as in

...