Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company v. Richardson et al
Filing
77
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 71 72 MOTIONS to Alter or Amend Judgment filed by Matthew S Richardson and filed by Matthew S Richardson. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 9/5/19. cc:dft Richardson (kjp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND
PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 3:18-CV-204-PPS-MGG
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
MATTHEW S. RICHARDSON, and
SHEILA SMITH, PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE
OF JOSHUA C. SMITH,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Matthew Richardson has filed multiple motions asking me to
reconsider or amend my prior order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff
Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company. [DE 71, 72, 75, 76.] I previously
granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim that
it does not owe any indemnity or have a duty to defend to Richardson in separate
wrongful death suit pending in Indiana state court. [DE 69.] That order also denied
Richardson’s motion for a stay of these proceedings because he said he intended to seek
collateral review of his state criminal conviction. [See DE 50.]
For the reasons discussed below, and as alluded to in the previous summary
judgment opinion, the fact Richardson is seeking review of his underlying criminal
conviction does not impact the collateral estoppel effect of his criminal conviction for
-1-
purposes of this lawsuit. His conviction stands, is final, and has not been disturbed,
amended, or reversed by any court. Accordingly, I will deny his motions to reconsider.
Background
Allstate filed this declaratory judgment action in order to obtain a declaration
that it did not owe a duty of indemnity or duty to defend Richardson in a wrongful
death action filed against him in Indiana state court. [DE 1.] That wrongful death suit
was filed by the estate of Joshua Smith, an individual who Richardson was convicted of
murdering. [Id.]
On May 15, 2019, I issued an opinion and order denying Richardson’s motion for
a stay and granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment. [DE 69.] The basis for that
ruling was that under the applicable homeowner’s insurance policy, Allstate owed no
duty to indemnify or defend for intentional acts and Richardson had been convicted by
a jury of intentionally killing Smith. And because the issue of intentional killing had
been actually litigated and was necessary for the jury to convict Richardson of the
crime, it was given preclusive effect (i.e., collateral estoppel). [Id.]
After that, Richardson, still proceeding pro se before me, filed two Motions to
Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). [DE
71, 72.] Richardson, later supplemented those with a “Notice of Information” [DE 75]
and then with a “Supplement Motion to Alter or Amend A Judgment.” [DE 76.] The
basis for his motions is that, while he had previously stated that he intended to file a
petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR petition”) on the grounds that he had
ineffective assistance of counsel in his criminal case, he has now actually filed a PCR
-2-
petition in Indiana state court. [DE 76.] Allstate has not responded to these motions, but
they are ripe for decision and may be decided without its input.
Discussion
“A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful only where the movant clearly
establishes: ‘(1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that
newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.’” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v.
Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012)). Richardson says that because now, after judgment has
been entered in this case, he has filed a PCR petition seeking collateral review of his
underlying state court criminal conviction, I should reconsider my summary judgment
ruling (and presumably reverse it and grant his motion to stay this case). [See DE 71, 72,
75, 76.]
The problem, however, is that the mere fact that Richardson has filed a PCR
petition does not undercut the finality of his criminal conviction. “Indiana courts rely
on the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Second) of Judgments, section 13” in
determining whether a judgment is final. Mains v. Citibank, N.A., 852 F.3d 669, 676 (7th
Cir. 2017) (Johnson v. Anderson, 590 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992)). And
according to the Restatement “a judgment otherwise final remains so despite the taking
of an appeal.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13 (1982). Courts within this circuit
uniformly treat other forms of collateral review (such as petitions for writs of habeas
corpus or PCR petitions) in the same manner as appeals for purposes of collateral
estoppel. E.g., Doe v. Cotterman, No. 17 C 58, 2018 WL 1235014, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9,
-3-
2018) (“[T]his argument falls flat. Cotterman’s appeal, let alone his habeas petition, does
not affect the finality of his criminal judgment for purposes of issue preclusion.”); S.E.C.
v. Durham, No. 111CV00370JMSTAB, 2017 WL 3581640, at *7 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 18, 2017)
(“If a direct appeal is no bar to collateral estoppel, it logically follows that a § 2255
Motion is also not a bar to collateral estoppel.”); S.E.C. v. Black, No. 04 C 7377, 2008 WL
4394891, at *1, n.1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2008) (“Collateral estoppel is only affected if and
when. . . a court in a collateral proceeding (see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2255) modifies the
judgment that has been entered.”). “Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence.
The sentence is the judgment.” Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605, 609 (1973) (citation
omitted). This body of law forecloses the relief Richardson is now seeking.
Of course, this begs the question: what happens if Richardson is in fact successful
in his PCR petition and gets his conviction overturned? If that happens, Richardson will
not be without a remedy:
If, when the earlier judgment is set aside or reversed, the later
judgment is still subject to a post-judgment motion for a new trial or
the like, or is still open to appeal, or such a motion has actually been
made and is pending or an appeal has been taken and remains
undecided, a party may inform the trial or appellate court of the
nullification of the earlier judgment and the consequent elimination
of the basis for the later judgment. The court should then normally
set aside the later judgment. When the later judgment is no longer
open to a motion for a new trial or the like at the trial court level, nor
subject to appeal, the fact of the nullification of the earlier judgment
may be made the ground for appropriate proceedings for relief from
the later judgment with any suitable provision for restitution of
benefits that may have been obtained under that judgment.
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 16. Several other courts have recognized this as
the correct course of action. E.g., Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. Friedland, No. 87 C 8663, 1991
-4-
WL 192154, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 1991) (striking three year old order granting
summary judgment based on state court criminal conviction after state court criminal
conviction was reversed by appellate court); see also Shaffer v. Smith, 673 A.2d 872, 875
(Pa. 1996) (“We recognize that the subsequent appellate reversal of a criminal
conviction will nullify the evidentiary foundation upon which a civil judgment is
predicated. This problem, however, is capable of being resolved in a fashion that would
afford a defendant a remedy.”) (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 16). Thus,
Richardson can file a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) if his conviction itself is overturned, but he may do so only when that
conviction is in fact overturned, amended, or otherwise no longer a final judgment.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Matthew Richardson’s motions to alter or
amend the judgment in this case [DE 71, 72] are DENIED.
SO ORDERED on September 5, 2019.
/s/ Philip P. Simon___
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?