Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04036/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04036-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4036

___________

Brian P. Crocker, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

John Wetlaufer, employed as State of * Southern District of Iowa.

Iowa Revenue Agent; Norine E. *

Canney, owner of Shamrock * [UNPUBLISHED]

Construction Co., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 6, 2005

Filed: December 8, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Brian P. Crocker appeals from orders of the district court1

 (1) dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action against John Wetlaufer and Norine Canney, and (2) denying his

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) post-judgment motion to amend or enlarge the

district court’s findings. The district court’s orders were decided on grounds that

Appellate Case: 04-4036 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983505
-2-

Crocker received a full and fair opportunity to litigate in garnishment proceedings in

Iowa state court in 2002, and res judicata bars issues that were or could have been

asserted in those proceedings, including those being asserted in the case at bar. We

note that, in a 2003 state-court action that Crocker brought against Canney, the Iowa

courts precluded him from relitigating similar issues on the ground that they could

have been asserted in the prior garnishment proceedings. We therefore agree with the

district court’s reasoning and conclusions in the present case. See Allen v. McCurry,

449 U.S. 90, 96, 104 (1980) (federal courts afford state-court judgments preclusive

effect in § 1983 cases whenever the state courts themselves would do so, provided the

adjudicating court acted within its proper jurisdiction and the parties had a full and fair

opportunity to litigate the federal claim). The orders of the district court are affirmed.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4036 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983505