441 P.3d 850
Wyo.2019Background
- Chester L. Bird, in WDOC custody since 1994, was disciplined in 2016 for participating in a pornographic video scheme and received 60 days in disciplinary segregation.
- Bird previously filed a federal habeas petition alleging his disciplinary hearing violated due process (denial of staff witnesses, false testimony, lack of evidence, undisclosed/confidential reports); federal court granted summary judgment for respondents and denied a COA.
- Bird then filed a state declaratory judgment action against WDOC director Robert Lampert seeking a declaration that WDOC must follow its own policies and procedures and alleging specific procedural defects in his disciplinary process.
- Lampert moved to dismiss, asserting collateral estoppel and res judicata based on the prior federal habeas proceeding; in reply he argued, alternatively, that Bird lacked standing to seek a general declaration.
- The district court dismissed Bird’s complaint; Bird appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could consider standing raised only in reply | Bird: Lampert waived standing by not raising it in the motion to dismiss | Lampert: Standing may be raised in reply to Bird's changed theory | Court: Standing is justiciability and may be raised at any time; consideration was proper |
| Whether Bird had standing to seek a general declaration that WDOC must follow its policies | Bird: He seeks a binding declaration that WDOC adhere to its rules (not an advisory opinion) | Lampert: The requested declaration is advisory/hypothetical and Bird lacks a justiciable interest | Court: Bird lacked standing for a general declaration; such relief would be advisory and non-justiciable |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars issues Bird raised in federal habeas | Bird: Current claims are distinct and recast as state-law claims not previously litigated | Lampert: Identical issues were litigated and decided in federal habeas | Court: Collateral estoppel applies to issues identical to those resolved in federal court; barred |
| Whether res judicata bars remaining procedural claims or variations | Bird: New framing (state-law/declaratory relief) avoids preclusion and could not have been raised in federal court | Lampert: Claims arise from same subject matter and should have been raised earlier | Court: Res judicata bars claims arising from the disciplinary proceedings or that should have been raised previously; barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Allred v. Bebout, 409 P.3d 260 (Wyo. 2018) (declaratory-judgment justiciability factors)
- Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574 (Wyo. 1974) (courts cannot issue advisory opinions)
- In re L-MHB, 431 P.3d 560 (Wyo. 2018) (standing/justiciability may be raised at any time)
- Slavens v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 854 P.2d 683 (Wyo. 1993) (elements of collateral estoppel)
- Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 245 P.3d 293 (Wyo. 2010) (res judicata and collateral estoppel standards)
- Texas W. Oil & Gas Corp. v. First Interstate Bank, 743 P.2d 857 (Wyo. 1987) (preclusion applies between principal and agent in official-capacity suits)