Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03527/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03527-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Mary Ann L. Medler, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3527

___________

Vincent M. Ventimiglia, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

St. Louis County; Bob McCullouch; * Eastern District of Missouri.

Buzz Westfall; Judge Celeste Endicott; *

Allison Wolfe; David Arthur; Renee * [UNPUBLISHED]

Hines Tyce; Police Officer Angela *

Candler; Judge Robert G. Dowd, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 3, 2004

Filed: June 17, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vincent M. Ventimiglia appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-3527 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2004 Entry ID: 1778145 
-2-

We agree with the district court that all of Ventimiglia’s claims -- other than

his claim against Officer Angela Candler -- are barred by collateral estoppel because

he unsuccessfully raised the issues underlying these claims during his state criminal

appeal. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 103-05 (1980) (collateral estoppel may

apply when § 1983 plaintiff attempts to relitigate in federal court issues decided

against him in state criminal proceedings; federal court gives state court judgment

same preclusive effect it would be given under law of state where it was rendered);

Shahan v. Shahan, 988 S.W.2d 529, 532-33 (Mo. 1999) (summarizing doctrine of

collateral estoppel). As to Ventimiglia’s remaining claim that Officer Candler

falsified information to establish probable cause for his arrest, we conclude that his

conviction precludes such a claim. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 170 (8th Cir.

1995) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by record); Malady v.

Crunk, 902 F.2d 10, 11-12 (8th Cir. 1990) (conviction for offense for which officer

arrested plaintiff bars § 1983 action alleging absence of probable cause).

Ventimiglia’s remaining arguments are meritless. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Ventimiglia’s

pending motions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3527 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2004 Entry ID: 1778145