Court Opinion

ID: 9469653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:46:06.523384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:29.954771
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
On this appeal, we are asked whether the district court correctly entered judgment below in favor of defendants on the ground of res judicata. We hold that res judicata principles do not apply and reverse and remand.

Factual Background

In 1973, Thomas Quarles was convicted of assaplt with intent to commit murder and sentenced to 15 years in the state penitentiary. Apparently because of the ineffectiveness of his counsel, his state appeals were frustrated. Following a hearing on Quarles’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the United States District Court on December 9, 1977 entered an order finding that Quarles’ counsel had been ineffective in the state appellate system and directed the state to provide an out-of-term appeal and to appoint counsel. The district court provided that if the state failed to avail itself of an opportunity to correct the deficiency in the appellate process, that the court would at the end of 90 days enter an appropriate order. On April 7, 1978, Quarles escaped and was not returned to custody until June 10, 1980. In August 1978, the state moved to dismiss its pending appeal of the district court’s order. The Fifth Circuit at that time held:
In the instant case, the relief ordered by the district court is particularly ill-suited for review given the fact that Quarles has escaped from state prison. Under the circumstances, we hold that the order of the district court should be vacated and the appeal dismissed should Quarles not be returned to the direct custody of the state of Alabama, by surrender or otherwise, within 60 days of the date of this order.
Quarles v. Alabama, 578 F.2d 1148, 1149 (5th Cir. 1978). The court directed that if Quarles returned within 60 days, the state would have an opportunity to proceed with its appeal. Otherwise; the order of the district court was to be “vacated and the appeal dismissed.” Quarles did not return within the 60 days.
Thomas Quarles filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on September 3, 1980. The complaint alleged essentially that Quarles was initially arrested under a void warrant, that his indictment did not charge “a crime,” and that his counsel was ineffective. Named as defendants were the sheriff, deputy sheriffs, judges, and court officers involved in Quarles’ state arrest and conviction and from whom Quarles demanded money damages.
On January 20, 1981, the United States Magistrate entered an order instructing the parties to reassess the case in light of Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (res judicata concepts *346apply to § 1983 actions). The state defendants promptly responded indicating that since the ineffectiveness claim had been previously adjudicated, consideration of the claim was barred in this case. The magistrate recommended a dismissal on res judicata grounds of the entire claim, noting that “essentially the same claim” was made in this action as had been made in the prior habeas action. The district judge accepted the recommendation of the magistrate and dismissed “on res judicata grounds.”
On appeal, even the appellees seem to acknowledge that res judicata does not apply in this case. Supp. Brief of Appellees 7. Appellees contend, however, that the appellant is “disentitled to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where he voluntarily abandoned those same claims by escaping during the pendency of his earlier habeas corpus appeal.” Id. at 1. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970); Joensen v. Wainwright, 615 F.2d 1077 (5th Cir. 1980); Estrada v. United States, 585 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1978).

Res Judicata

The term “res judicata” has been applied to both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. See, e.g., Allen v. McCurry, supra. Claim preclusion does not apply in this case. The judgment of the district court was vacated; thus, no final judgment on the merits exists. Bradford v. Bronner, 665 F.2d 680 (5th Cir. 1982). Appellees’ attempt to characterize the action of the Fifth Circuit as a “default” judgment must fail. Even if successfully so characterized, such a judgment is not “on the merits.” Kaspar Wireworks, Inc. v. Leco Engineering & Mach., 575 F.2d 530, 539 (5th Cir. 1978). Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) is also inapplicable. Under that doctrine, issues are not relitigated if they have previously been actually adjudicated and are essential to a judgment between the same parties. Harris v. Washington, 404 U.S. 55, 92 S.Ct. 183, 30 L.Ed.2d 212 (1971). The district court in the initial habeas corpus case resolved the competency of counsel issue in favor of Mr. Quarles. The circuit court did not decide the competency issue on the merits. Additionally, there are issues in the § 1983 complaint not precluded by the competency of counsel issue. “Res judicata” does not bar this action.
We do not address the merits of appellees’ Molinaro contentions. The record is insufficient for us to do so. The district court on remand may, of course, deal with the “abandoned claim” defense. We also note the possible applicability of the doctrines of immunity. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (judges and prosecutors); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-55, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1218, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (qualified immunity of police officers). See Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 98 S.Ct. 855, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978).
At oral argument we were informed that Quarles is now on parole. Also, another proceeding is pending in which Quarles seeks to have his 1973 conviction vacated on grounds that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Judicial economy suggests consolidation of that action with this remanded action if such is practicable.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.