Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 93-3721
Summary Calendar.
Wesley JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FRENCH MARKET CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Oct. 19, 1994.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before WISDOM, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.
WISDOM, Circuit Judge:
Appellant, Wesley Johnson, appeals from the district court's dismissal of his claim under the
Privacy Act of 1974.1 The district court determined that the appellant's claim had already been fully
litigated in Louisiana state court and was, therefore, barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Because
of insufficient information, however, we vacate and remand for the record to be supplemented.
I.
Wesley Johnson, the plaintiff/appellant, is a French Market vendor and the owner of a business
called the African Harvest. In 1993, The French Market Corporation requested Johnson to provide
certain personal information, including his social security number, to update his vendor's application.
He refused and filed this action alleging a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974. He seeks an
injunction to prevent the French Market Corporation from revoking his vendor's license and evicting
him from his space in the French Market.
The district court initially granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the French
Market Corporation. In September 1993, the district court conducted a hearing on the plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunction. At that hearing, the district judge recalled the TRO and ruled that
the federal claim had already been fully litigated in Louisiana state court. Accordingly, the district
1The Privacy Act of 1974 is found at 5 U.S.C. sections 551 and 552.

court dismissed the action, refusing to interfere with a state court judgment.
II.
Johnson raises three issues on appeal. First, he claims that a dismissal on the grounds of res
judicata was improper because t he defendant, French Market Corporation, failed to serve the
appellant personally with the documentation used to support the allegation that res judicata barred
the action. Second, Johnson maintains that, even if there was a final state judgment, the Louisiana
state courts were not competent to adjudicate his Privacy Act claim. Finally, he contends that the
proper documentation of the state court proceedings evidencing the need for a dismissal was never
entered into the record.
We find it unnecessary to address the first two contentions and instead focus on the lack of
any authenticated documentation of the state court proceedings in the record before us.
III.
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1738, state court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit in
federal courts. In determining what preclusive effect a state judgment has on subsequent litigation,
we look to what effect a court of the rendering state would give it.2 In the case before us, we would
examine the plaintiff's state and federal claims under Louisiana preclusion law, as the state court
judgment before us was issued by the state courts of Louisiana. 28 U.S.C. section 1738 provides in
pertinent part:
The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or
Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United
States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court
annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said
attestation is in proper from.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the
same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and
Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession
from which they are taken.
2Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 80-81, 104 S.Ct.
892, 895-96, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d
308 (1980). For the application of this well-settled rule in this Court see, Lewis v. East Feliciana
Parish School Board, 820 F.2d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir.1987); Brister v. Parish of Jefferson, 747
F.2d 1019, 1021-22 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1101, 105 S.Ct. 2327, 85 L.Ed.2d 845
(1984); Superior Oil Co. v. City of Port Arthur, 726 F.2d 203, 206 (5th Cir.1984).

Thus, if the plaintiff is, as the defendant asserts, attempting to relitigate a claim that he voluntarily
pursued previously in state court, we must defer to the state court adjudication and give the state
judgment full preclusive effect under Louisiana law.
There is, however, a threshold requirement which must be met before we can undertake an
examination of the two claims under Louisiana preclusion law. 28 U.S.C. section 1738 requires an
authenticated copy of the state court judgment.3 This is necessary, not only to meet the requirements
of the statute, but also to allow a comparison of the adjudicated state claim with the claim asserted
here.4 This documentation is not in the record and, without it, the necessary analysis is impossible.
Accordingly, we VACATE the district court's decision to dismiss this action and REMAND for the
record to be supplemented.

328 U.S.C. section 1738 gives full faith and credit to judgments properly authenticated by the
rendering court. See Horwitz v. Board of Medical Examiners of State of Colorado, 822 F.2d
1508, 1512 (10th Cir.1987) (rejecting an allegation of res judicata because, among other reasons,
the record did not contain an "authenticated copy of the judgment of the Colorado Court of
Appeals required under 28 U.S.C. section 1738 in order to have full faith and credit effect").
4Under Louisiana preclusion law a claim is barred by res judicata only if there is a final
judgment and there is: "(1) an identity of the parties, (2) an identity of the cause, (3) an identity
of the thing demanded." Lewis, 820 F.2d at 146 (citing La.Rev.Stat.Ann. art. 13:4231 (West
Supp.1987)). Thus, a comparison of the state and federal complaints would be necessary to
determine whether Louisiana law would, indeed, bar the appellant's federal action.