779 F.3d 867
8th Cir.2015Background
- Smith, an Arkansas inmate, sued correctional officer Johnson under §1983 for Eighth Amendment violations.
- Smith alleges Johnson returned him to the general population after protective custody, enabling an attack by another inmate.
- After the attack, Smith was punished for the altercation under major disciplinary policies, and grievances were exhausted without relief.
- Smith pursued a state-court Claims Commission claim alleging deliberate indifference and cruel punishment by multiple officers, including Johnson, and for property confiscation.
- The Claims Commission dismissed for lack of proof of negligence by the DOC; the district court later dismissed Smith’s §1983 action as barred by claim or issue preclusion, which the court later vacated on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim preclusion bars the §1983 action | Smith | Johnson | Not barred by claim preclusion |
| Whether issue preclusion bars the §1983 action | Smith | Johnson | Not barred by issue preclusion |
| Whether the Arkansas Claims Commission had jurisdiction over constitutional claims | Smith | DOC/Claims Commission | Commission lacked jurisdiction over constitutional claims; cannot preclude the §1983 action |
| Whether the §1983 claim against Johnson individually could be pursued in district/federal court | Smith | Johnson | Yes; negligence resolution did not resolve deliberate indifference/intentional conduct by Johnson |
Key Cases Cited
- Craven v. Fulton Sanitation Serv., Inc., 206 S.W.3d 842 (Ark. 2005) (claim preclusion applies to agency decisions absent jurisdictional limits)
- Jayel Corp. v. Cochran, 234 S.W.3d 278 (Ark. 2006) (claim preclusion; scope of relitigation)
- Smith v. Roane, 683 S.W.2d 935 (Ark. 1985) (Restatement guidance on preclusion in certain contexts)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (standard for supervisory/official-capacity §1983 claims)
- Early v. Crockett, 436 S.W.3d 141 (Ark. 2014) (limits of sovereign immunity and Claims Commission jurisdiction)
- Hockensmith v. Brown, 929 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) (negligence vs deliberate indifference mutually exclusive)
- BP Chems. Ltd. v. Jiangsu Sopo Corp., 285 F.3d 677 (8th Cir. 2002) (negligence vs intentional tort distinctions)
- In re Estate of Goston, 898 S.W.2d 471 (Ark. 1995) (issue preclusion must address exact issue)
- Deer/Mt. Judea Sch. Dist. v. Kimbrell, 430 S.W.3d 29 (Ark. 2013) (Arkansas on issue preclusion)