Title: Ex parte LCS Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Carl Braxton Toole v. LCS Inc.)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1071668
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 19, 2008

REL: 12/19/2008
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009
_________________________
1071668
_________________________
Ex parte LCS Inc.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  Carl Braxton Toole
v.
LCS Inc.)
(Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-07-001595)
LYONS, Justice.
LCS Inc. petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus
directing the Montgomery Circuit Court to dismiss the claims
1071668
2
against it in the underlying action on the basis of res
judicata.  We grant the petition and issue the writ.  
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
Carl 
Braxton 
Toole 
is 
an 
inmate 
in 
the 
Alabama
correctional system.  During his incarceration he has been
moved from prison to prison, including a private prison in
Louisiana operated by LCS Inc.  On October 3, 2006, while
incarcerated in Louisiana, Toole filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action in the Evangeline, Louisiana, District Court contending
that he had been denied a fundamental right to access the law
library in the private prison.  Toole contended that the lack
of access led to his being unable to file a brief in an appeal
he had pending in the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals from
the denial of a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for
postconviction relief and that his failure to file the brief
resulted in the dismissal of his appeal.  The Louisiana
district court entered a summary judgment against Toole on
October 1, 2007.
On October 11, 2007, Toole, now back in an Alabama
prison, filed a § 1983 action in the Montgomery Circuit Court
asserting the same facts and law and seeking the same relief.
1071668
3
LCS filed a motion to dismiss the Alabama action on the basis
of res judicata and collateral estoppel; the trial court
denied LCS's motion.  LCS timely filed this petition on
September 12, 2008.
II. Standard of Review
"'Mandamus 
is 
a 
drastic 
and
extraordinary writ to be issued only where
there is (1) a clear legal right in the
petitioner to the order sought; (2) an
imperative duty upon the respondent to
perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so;
(3) the lack of another adequate remedy;
and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of
the court.'"
Ex parte Mardis, 628 So. 2d 605, 606 (Ala. 1993) (quoting Ex
parte Ben-Acadia, Ltd., 566 So. 2d 486, 488 (Ala. 1990)).
Moreover, a petition for a writ of mandamus is an appropriate
method by which to seek this Court's review of the denial of
a motion to dismiss predicated on the doctrine of res
judicata.  Ex parte Sears, Roebuck & Co., 895 So. 2d 265 (Ala.
2004).
III. Analysis
Toole has filed two actions seeking the same relief in
courts of proper jurisdiction in two states.  The  Louisiana
complaint named as defendants LCS Inc. and three officers with
1071668
4
the Louisiana corrections system.  Toole alleged a § 1983
civil-rights claim against the defendants "for denying
plaintiff meaningful access to court and the denial [of]
access to the law library at Pine Prairie Correctional Center
which resulted in plaintiff losing his time to file an Appeal
Brief" with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.  The
Evangeline District Court adjudicated Toole's claim on its
merits and entered a final judgment against Toole.  
The Alabama complaint, as originally filed, named as
defendants "in their individual capacity" Richard Allen, as
commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, and
Patrick LeBlanc, as president of LCS Inc.  Toole alleged that
he was denied "his First Amendment Right to the United States
Constitution to meaningful access to the courts, by depriving
[him] access to the prison law library in a timely manner
based upon a contract between the defendants and a policy
written in one of the defendant's Inmate Offenders Handbook."
Both defendants filed motions to dismiss.  On April 30, 2008,
the trial court granted Allen's motion to dismiss.  On August
15, 2008, the trial court denied LeBlanc's motion to dismiss
based upon the doctrines of res judicata and collateral
1071668
Neither party explains the substitution of LCS for
1
LeBlanc.  We interpret the trial court's order allowing LCS to
be named as a defendant in place of LeBlanc "and/or his
estate" to indicate that LeBlanc died during the pendency of
this litigation.   
5
estoppel.  In the same order, the trial court granted Toole's
motion for substitution of a party "such that Defendant,
Patrick LeBlanc and/or his estate is hereby dismissed from
this case and LCS, Inc. (Louisiana Correctional Services,
Inc.) is hereby added as a named Defendant."   
1
In Lee L. Saad Construction Co. v. DPF Architects, P.C.,
851 So. 2d 507, 516-17 (Ala. 2002), this Court discussed the
elements of res judicata:
"Res judicata and collateral estoppel are two
closely related, judicially created doctrines that
preclude the relitigation of matters that have been
previously adjudicated or, in the case of res
judicata, that could have been adjudicated in a
prior action.
"'The doctrine of res judicata, while
actually embodying two basic concepts,
usually refers to what commentators label
"claim 
preclusion," 
while 
collateral
estoppel ... refers to "issue preclusion,"
which is a subset of the broader res
judicata doctrine.'
"Little v. Pizza Wagon, Inc., 432 So. 2d 1269, 1272
(Ala. 1983) (Jones, J., concurring specially).  See
also McNeely v. Spry Funeral Home of Athens, Inc.,
724 So. 2d 534, 537 n.1 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998).  In
Hughes v. Martin, 533 So. 2d 188 (Ala. 1988), this
1071668
6
Court explained the rationale behind the doctrine of
res judicata:
"'Res judicata is a broad, judicially
developed doctrine, which rests upon the
ground that public policy, and the interest
of the litigants alike, mandate that there
be an end to litigation; that those who
have contested an issue shall be bound by
the ruling of the court; and that issues
once tried shall be considered forever
settled between those same parties and
their privies.'
"533 So. 2d at 190.  The elements of res judicata
are
"'(1) a prior judgment on the merits, (2)
rendered 
by 
a 
court 
of 
competent
jurisdiction, 
(3) 
with 
substantial 
identity
of the parties, and (4) with the same cause
of action presented in both actions.'
"Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So. 2d 634,
636 (Ala. 1998).  'If those four elements are
present, then any claim that was, or that could have
been, adjudicated in the prior action is barred from
further litigation.'  723 So. 2d at 636.  Res
judicata, therefore, bars a party from asserting in
a subsequent action a claim that it has already had
an opportunity to litigate in a previous action."
Clearly, the four elements necessary to establish res
judicata are present in this case:  (1) There is a prior
judgment on the merits of Toole's claim that he was improperly
denied access to the law library in the Louisiana prison
operated by LCS; (2) the prior judgment was rendered by a
1071668
7
court of competent jurisdiction; (3) there is complete
identity of the parties--Toole was the plaintiff in both
actions, and, upon the trial court's order granting the motion
for substitution, LCS, a defendant in the Louisiana action,
became a defendant in the Alabama action; and (4) the same
cause of action, namely, Toole's claim that he was denied
access to the prison law library and thus to the courts, was
presented in this and the previously filed action.  The
doctrine of res judicata applies not only to the exact legal
theories presented in the prior action, but to "all legal
theories and claims arising out of the same nucleus of
operative facts."  Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 790 So. 2d
922, 928 (Ala. 2000).  The doctrine of res judicata,
therefore, bars Toole from asserting in the Alabama action the
claim that he has already had an opportunity to litigate in
the previous Louisiana action.  
IV. Conclusion
LCS has shown a clear legal right to the relief it seeks
in that it was entitled to have its motion to dismiss granted
on the basis of res judicata.  We therefore grant LCS's
petition for the writ of mandamus and direct the Montgomery
1071668
8
Circuit Court to enter an order dismissing Toole's claims
against LCS.  
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Cobb, C.J., and Stuart, Bolin, and Murdock, JJ., concur.