Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01445/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01445-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stites Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci!''."Jit 

AUG 9 1989 

ANANT KUMAR TRIPATI, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

TOWE, BALL, ENRIGHT & MACKEY; THOMAS E. ) 

TOWE; WIGGINS & SMITH; DANIEL T. SMITH; ) 

ROBERT T. MCALLISTER; DILL, DILL & ) 

MCALLISTER; ARTHUR H. BOSWORTH; ) 

BOSWORTH & SLIVKA, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1445 

(D.C. No. 85-0031) 

( D. Wyo.) 

Before .MCKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

This prose plaintiff appeals from a district court order 

dismissing his combined civil rights and RICO action as frivolous 

under 28 u.s.c. S 1915(d). 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

16.3. 

Appellate Case: 87-1445 Document: 01019974459 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 1 
The 

underlying 

district court held that the factual allegations 

plaintiff's legal claims constituted, in substance, 

attempt to relitigate criminal charges already 

prosecuted against plaintiff, and, accordingly, held 

merely an 

successfully 

such claims barred under the principles of collateral estoppel. 

See, ~, Glantz v. United States, 837 F.2d 23, 24-25 (1st Cir. 

1988)(recognizing use of collateral estoppel in civil action 

following criminal conviction); McCord v. Bailey, 636 F.2d 606, 

610 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 983 (198l)(same). 

Plaintiff has not challenged this ruling with respect to any of 

the four inquiries upon which collateral estoppel is based. See 

Klein v. Commissioner, No. 85-1245, F.2d , slip op. at 7 

(10th Cir. filed July 10, 1989), citing, Montana v. United States, 

440 U.S. 147, 153-55 (1979). Rather, plaintiff contends that 

collateral estoppel is inapplicable here because defendants were 

not parties to his criminal proceeding. Plaintiff misperceives 

the nature of collateral estoppel, which may be raised defensively 

to prevent a plaintiff from relitigating matters determined 

against him in a prior action, even though the ·defendants were not 

parties thereto. McCord, 636 F.2d at 609 n.l; Cardillo v. Zyla, 

486 F.2d 473, 475-76 (1st Cir. 1973). Accordingly, the district 

court's application of collateral estoppel has not been 

effectively challenged on this appeal. Furthermore, since the 

same factual allegations underlie all of plaintiff's legal claims, 

we need not resolve plaintiff's unrelated legal objections to the 

dismissal of his civil rights claims. 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1445 Document: 01019974459 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 2 
The judgment of the United States District Gourt for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. 

sanctions is DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Defendants' 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

request for 

Appellate Case: 87-1445 Document: 01019974459 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 3