Opinion ID: 503789
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: 63 Marcincin was a district justice who testified at the council hearings about the plaintiff's infractions of Township rules. The federal suit alleges that Marcincin conspired with the individual defendants to have plaintiff discharged for his political activities. Marcincin is sued only in his individual capacity. 64 The district court entered judgment in favor of Marcincin and the individual defendants, applying issue preclusion based on the state court's implicit finding that the plaintiff's constitutional rights had not been violated. 65 Under Pennsylvania law, the following conditions must exist before issue preclusion may be invoked: 66 1. The issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the one presented in the later action; 67 2. There was a final judgment on the merits; 68 3. The party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and 69 4. The party against whom it is asserted has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question in the prior action. 70 Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 463 Pa. 567, 574, 345 A.2d 664, 668 (1975). See Public Serv. Mut. Co. v. Cohen, 616 F.2d 704 (3d Cir.1980). 71 Plaintiff contends that the state court did not specifically rule on his First Amendment claim and that issue preclusion should not apply. As noted earlier, the plaintiff's brief in the Common Pleas court focused on the bias of the Council members who participated in the hearing, but he did not state specifically that the discharge itself was accomplished for political reasons. The panel majority reads the decision of the Common Pleas court as adjudicating only the action of the Council in upholding the plaintiff's prior discharge. Viewed in that light, the issue decided by the Common Pleas Court was not whether the discharge was politically motivated but whether the hearing was politically biased. Recalling this court's admonition that [r]easonable doubt as to what was decided by a prior judgment should be resolved against using it as an estoppel, Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1274 (3d Cir.1970), the majority holds that the fact of a political discharge vel non was not adjudicated in the state court. Consequently, issue preclusion does not bar the wrongful discharge claim against the individual defendants in their personal capacity. 72 Judge Weis would hold that the issue of a politically-inspired discharge was inextricably tied to the matters presented in state court. Therefore, the case could not have been adjudicated as it was absent an underlying determination that the plaintiff's discharge did not violate the First Amendment. 73 The judgment in favor of the Township and its officials in their official capacities will be affirmed. The judgment in favor of the individual defendants in their personal capacities will be vacated and the case will be remanded for further proceedings. 74 Before: GIBBONS, Chief Judge, SEITZ, A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, Jr., SLOVITER, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, and WEIS, Circuit Judges, and DIAMOND, District Judge  . SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING 75