Opinion ID: 627939
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Debrys' Sec. 1983 Claims

Text: 12 The district court granted summary judgment to the Second County Defendants on the Debrys' Sec. 1983 claims on the ground that these claims were barred under state law principles of claim preclusion. The court found that all of the Debrys' Sec. 1983 claims were claims that the Debrys raised or could have raised in their prior state court action, and thus litigation of these claims in federal court was precluded under Utah law. The Debrys argue that the district court's reliance on state law principles of claim preclusion was erroneous because they did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate their constitutional claims in the state proceeding. 5 13 We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Applied Genetics Int'l Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir.1990). The court applies the same legal standard used by the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). Id. Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In analyzing whether summary judgment is appropriate, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Deepwater Invs. Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir.1991). 14 It is well-settled that the federal courts must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect that the judgment would receive from the courts of the state in which the judgment was rendered. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738; Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380 (1985); Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 467 (1982); Gates Learjet Corp. v. Duncan Aviation, 851 F.2d 303, 305 (10th Cir.1988); Heinhold Hog Market v. McCoy, 817 F.2d 81, 82 (10th Cir.1987); Kiowa Tribe v. Lewis, 777 F.2d 587, 590 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 872 (1986). This principle applies to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist., 465 U.S. 75 (1984); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980); Vance v. Utah, 744 F.2d 750, 752 (10th Cir.1984). It is equally well settled, however, that federal courts need not apply state law rules of preclusion where the plaintiff was denied a full and fair opportunity to present his or her claims in the state proceeding. See McCurry, 449 U.S. at 101; Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 313 (1982); Vance, 744 F.2d at 752; Davis v. United States Steel Supply, Inc., 688 F.2d 166, 176 (3rd Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1064 (1983). In such a situation, the federal courts are free to determine the claims in the federal proceeding. Kremer, 456 U.S. at 481. Accordingly, whether the district court properly relied on state law principles of claim preclusion in the instant case depends on whether the Debrys were afforded a full and fair opportunity to present their constitutional claims in the prior state court proceeding. 15 A plaintiff is denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate a claim or issue in a state proceeding where the proceeding fails to satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause. Kremer, 456 U.S. at 481; accord Butler v. City of North Little Rock, 980 F.2d 501, 503 (8th Cir.1992). In the instant case, there is no evidence that the Debrys were denied due process in the prior state proceeding. The record demonstrates that the Debrys were permitted to plead constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, to brief these claims in response to the First County Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and to argue these claims before the court. Furthermore, the record belies the Debrys' assertion that the court dismissed their Sec. 1983 claims on a ground not argued by either party, namely that there was no proof of any constitutional deprivations. In their motion for summary judgment in the state court proceeding, the First County Defendants devoted an entire section of their pleadings to this very argument. Accordingly, the Debrys had both notice of, and opportunity to address, this argument prior to the state court's decision. We conclude on the basis of the record that the state proceedings complied with the requirements of the due process clause. See Vance, 744 F.2d at 752-53 (upholding the validity of a prior state proceeding where the plaintiff had a full opportunity to plead and argue issues before the state tribunal). 16 In McCurry, the Supreme Court suggested that an additional basis might exist in Sec. 1983 actions for concluding that a plaintiff has been denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate his or her claims even where the state proceeding satisfied due process. The Court stated that an exception to state preclusion rules might be appropriate where a state court failed to even acknowledge the existence of the constitutional principle on which a litigant based his claim. 449 U.S. at 101. The Debrys argue that such a result occurred in the instant case, because the state court erroneously held that its Sec. 1983 claims were barred by the Utah Governmental Immunity Statute. 6 However, it is clear from the court's decision that it dismissed the Debrys' Sec. 1983 claims, inter alia, because the Debrys failed to prove the existence of any constitutional violations. The court said, The Court further finds that the plaintiffs have not been deprived of their First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution by virtue of Salt Lake County's having issued a Notice and Order to Vacate the plaintiffs' premises. 7 The court's discussion of the preclusive effect of the Utah Immunity Statute occurred in a separate paragraph in connection with its analysis of the Debrys' negligence claims. 8 There is simply no basis, therefore, for finding that the state court was indifferent to the Debrys' Sec. 1983 claims within the meaning of McCurry. 17 We conclude that the Debrys were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate their Sec. 1983 claims in the prior state proceeding, and therefore, that the district court properly invoked Utah principles of preclusion. Since the Debrys do not argue that the district court misapplied these principles, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Second County Defendants. 18