Court Opinion

ID: 9463565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:10:05.45318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:10.309412
License: Public Domain

AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the en banc holding in this case which vacates the district order that the case be dismissed, and now remands the case for further consideration by the district court.
This prisoner suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two assistant district attorneys and the superintendent of police allegedly for refusing to divulge exculpatory evidence which plaintiff asserts was in their possession should be dismissed.
As to the two assistant district attorneys, dismissal is required by the recent Supreme Court holding in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).
As to the other defendant, the superintendent of police, it should likewise be dismissed because the identical issue has been passed on by the Louisiana Supreme Court adversely to plaintiff’s position and is therefore res judicata. See State ex rel. Fulford v. Maggio, 333 So.2d 641-642 (1976); see also State ex rel. Feazel v. Henderson, 263 La. 994, 270 So.2d 126 (1972). I am therefore in agreement with Judge Tjoflat’s dissenting opinion in this regard and with the rationale there expressed that Fulford is collaterally estopped from continuing to litigate this issue in the present damage suit.
It is therefore pointless to remand this case to permit further proceedings in the state court when the issue has already been fully litigated all the way to the highest Louisiana court.
The district court opinion which dismissed this suit should be AFFIRMED.1

. Under the circumstances I do not reach the question of whether this section 1983 suit may be pursued before state remedies are exhaust*343ed. See also my dissenting opinion in Coving-ton v. Cole, 5 Cir., 1976, 528 F.2d 1365, 1373. See also Smart v. Jones, 5 Cir., 1976, 530 F.2d 64, and Bruce v. Wade, 5 Cir., 1976, 537 F.2d 850.