Opinion ID: 1277454
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: city's issue-preclusion defenses are unsupported by this record

Text: ¶ 8 City argues that Judge Russell's ruling resolved all the fact and law issues tendered in the state-law tort action and claims that Salazar is precluded from relitigating all of them. According to City's argument, which is founded solely on issue preclusion, [2] the federal court (a) has determined that the warrant for Salazar's arrest was supported by probable cause and (b) has resolved in favor of City all issues that deal with alleged intentional acts. City concedes that Salazar's only remaining claim lies in negligence. ¶ 9 Salazar denies that the invoked preclusion bar extends to any of the issues pressed in his state-law litigation. He urges that Judge Russell's ruling, which gave summary judgment to City on all of the issues in his § 1983 [3] civil rights claim, was based on a stricter constitutional standard than that which applies to his state-law cause of action in tort. Because the earlier state-law claim was dismissed by the federal court without prejudice, [4] Salazar argues, he is not barred from now resubmitting that claim to a state court.