Frier v. City of Vandalia - (770 F.2d 699 (7th Cir. 1985)

Frier v. City of Vandalia

(770 F.2d 699 (7th Cir. 1985)

I. Issue

Whether it makes a difference that two of the replevin actions went to judgment, while P challenges the towing of four cars, based on the same fact.

II. Fact

The police called a local garage, which towed four of Frier's cars parked in a narrow street.  Frier balked at paying the fee.  P filed suits in the courts of Illinois seeking replevin against The City of Vandalia and the garage that had towed the car.  One of the suits  was dismissed voluntarily when P got his cars back.  The other two cased were consolidated and litigated.  The court concluded for D.  After losing in state court, P turned to federal court, maintaining that the City had not offered him a hearing either before or after it took the cars, violating the "official policy."  The complaint invoked the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §1983, and it sought equitable relief.  The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

III. Rule

One suit precludes a second where the parties and the cause of action are identical.  

Claim preclusion is designed to impel parties to consolidate all closely related matters into one suit.

IV. Reasoning

Some cases in Illinois recognize preclusion when both suits arise out of the same transaction.  This ground of preclusion is potentially broader than the "same evidence" ground.  P could have urged constitutional grounds as reasons for replevin.  

V. Holding

The City is entitled to prevail on the ground of claim preclusion, although the district court did not decide the case on that ground.  If P had filed the current suit in state court, he would have lost under the doctrine of claim preclusion.  Under 28 U.S.C. §1738 he therefore loses in federal court as well.  AFFIRMED.