Inside the Supreme Court
Petition to Decision
Papers of Supreme Court Justices on Civil Rights Cases
David Achtenberg
Professor & Law Foundation Scholar
UMKC School of Law
Kansas City, MO 64110-2499
816-235-2382
|
Petition to Decision Home Page |
| Archive |
| Timeline |
|
Researcher Information |
| Case Selection Page |
465 U.S. 75 (1984)
|
The Archive The Justice's Papers in Archive Order |
The Timeline Chronology with Links to Papers |
Researcher Information Materials for Further Research |
THIS PAGE NOT READY YET - NEEDS LOTS OF WORK
|
Migra's Background Story |
|
|
In Migra v. Warren City School District, the Supreme Court held that the principle of claim preclusion (res judicata) applies in §1983 cases. Under that principle, plaintiffs who sue under state law in state court, but elect not to assert closely related §1983 claims in those suits, will not be permitted to bring their §1983 claims later in federal court. American law generally permits parties only one bite at the apple. This one bite rule has two important aspects: Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), a party who has litigated and lost a particular issue in one case is not permitted to relitigate the same issue in a subsequent case. Under the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion) plaintiffs are required to bring closely related claims together in a single suit. Plaintiffs who omit such claims from their first suit will be barred from asserting them in subsequent suits. (For some additional explanation of these two doctrines, click here.) In Allen v. McCurry the Supreme Court held that principles of collateral estoppel would be applied in §1983 litigation, but left open the issue of whether res judicata principles would also be applied. In Migra, the Supreme Court resolved that issue. The Court rejected arguments that plaintiffs should be able to split their claims: first bringing their state claims in state court and then bringing their federal §1983 claims in federal court. Plaintiffs who could have raised their §1983s claim in prior state court litigation, but failed to do so, will be barred from raising those claims in subsequent federal court suits. Allen and Migra also resolved an important related issue. Both cases held that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the federal courts should apply state preclusion law, i.e., that they should give a prior state court decision the same preclusive effect that courts of the rendering state would give it. In doing so, Migra rejected the argument that federal courts could apply federal law to give state decisions greater preclusive effect than given them by the state courts. |
On April 17, 1979, the Board unanimously adopted a resolution renewing Dr. Migra's contract for the 1979-80 school year. She accepted the new contract in writing by a letter dated April 18 which was delivered to one board member on April 23 and to the superintendant and board President the next morning. Later that morning, the Board held a special meeting and adopted a resolution that purported to rescind its previous resolution and to cancel the contract it had offered her a week earlier. Not surprisingly, Dr. Migra sued the Board and the three board members who had voted not to renew her contract. Her initial suit was filed in state court and asserted state law causes of action for breach of contract by the Board and tortious interference with contract by the three board members. The state court ruled against the Board on the breach of contract claim and awarded Dr. Migra reinstatement and compensatory damages in the nature of back pay. It reserved the tortious interference claims against the individual board members and those claims were dismissed without prejudice at the plaintiff's request. The Board appealed the judgment but the state appellate court affirmed. In July of 1980, Dr. Migra sued the Board and the three individual members in federal court under §1983. She asserted that her termination violated various constitutional rights and alleged that it was motivated by hostility to her proposed desegregation plan and curriculum. However, the federal courts never reached the merits of those claims. Instead, the District Court ruled that Dr. Migra's federal claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata, because she should have raised them in her state court proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. As discussed in the previous column, the Supreme Court held that federal courts should apply principles of res judicata in §1983 actions and that they should give prior state court decisions the same preclusive effect given them by the state courts. However, the Court was uncertain whether the District Judge had applied Ohio or federal preclusion principles. As a result, it sent the case back to the District Court to interpret Ohio law and apply it. In the end, the District Court reaffirmed its conclusion that Dr. Migra's federal claims were barred by Ohio preclusion law, and she received no further relief. After the case was remanded, the school district settled with Dr. Migra. She went on to . . . .
|
From
1976 to 1979, Ethel D. Migra (pictured at right) served as Warren City
School District's supervisor of elementary education. In
connection with that position, she became the director of a
board-created commission that prepared a desegregation plan for the
district's elementary schools and a related curriculum for the schools.