Stacy et al v. Massa et al

Filing 147

ORDER denying 105 defendant Massa's Request for Hearing and Motion to Dismiss Count I, Count III, and Count V of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Signed on 8/5/13 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
Larry Stacy, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
Brian Massa, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 12-05038-CV-FJG

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Massa’s Request for Hearing Pursuant to
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.074 and Motion to Dismiss Count I, Count III, and Count V of
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 105).
I.

Background
This case involves claims filed by Plaintiffs Larry Stacy, individually and as

administrator of Bobby Stacy’s estate, and Claudia Martin Moss against Defendants
Brian Massa and Southwest City, Missouri, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for depriving Bobby
Stacy his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and
for Bobby Stacy’s wrongful death pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.080. On March 28,
2010, Defendant Brian Massa shot and killed decedent Bobby Massa, after an
attempted traffic stop and chase. Prior to the filing of this claim, Defendant Massa was
charged in state criminal court with involuntary manslaughter. A jury found Defendant
Massa guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced him to three
years in the Department of Corrections.
At issue with the pending motion is Defendant’s request for a hearing to provide
this Court evidence establishing he was justified in his use of deadly force against
Bobby Stacy under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.046, and such use of force is an absolute
defense to civil liability pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.074. Therefore, defendant
argues that if this Court found Defendant Massa to be justified in his use of deadly
force, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wrongful death, and
negligence per se claims.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Massa’s request for a hearing and motion to
dismiss should be denied because (1) Defendant Massa is estopped from re-litigating
the issue of justification as an absolute defense, (2) Missouri’s absolute immunity
statute does not preempt 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, and (3) this issue is a question of
fact to be decided by a jury. The Court finds that resolution of the first of these three
issues is dispositive of this motion.
II.

Standard
“A grant of judgment on the pleadings is appropriate ‘where no material issue of

fact remains to be resolved and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”
Poehl v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 528 F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797, 803 (8th Cir. 2002)). The Court must view all
facts pleaded by the nonmoving party as true and grants all reasonable inferences in
the nonmoving party’s favor. Id.
III.

Discussion - Issue Preclusion
Defendant argues that he is entitled to an absolute justification defense under

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.074, and requests an evidentiary hearing to establish his claim.
Under the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts must give
preclusive effect to state court judgments, and the preclusive effect is governed by the
law of the state from which the prior judgment emerged. Simmons v. O’Brien, 77 F.3d
1093, 1096 (8th cir. 1996). “Prior state court adjudications are given preclusive effect
even in later federal § 1983 actions.” Id.
In Missouri, issue preclusion applies when:
(1) the issue in the present action is identical to the issue decided in the
prior adjudication; (2) the prior adjudication resulted in judgment on the
merits; (3) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted was a
party or is in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the party
against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity
to litigate the issue in the prior suit.
Id. (citing State ex. rel. Haley v. Groose, 873 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Mo. banc 1994)). The
third element is clearly met in this case. However, Defendant Massa argues that the
remaining three elements have not been met.
First, Defendant Massa argues that “whether he had an absolute justification

2

defense under chapter 563 was never presented” in his prior adjudication. However,
the preliminary hearing transcript provides that the issue of absolute immunity was
raised, and the circuit court judge decided against Defendant Massa in that forum.
During the preliminary hearing, in response to the prosecution’s objection, counsel for
Defendant Massa suggested to the trial court that
if this homicide was a justifiable homicide, then there is no crime. So
therefore, if the Court was convinced that this officer, under these
circumstances, was in fear of his life or of grievous bodily harm and acted
therefore with reasonable force, then there is no crime and the Court
could discharge this defendant at the preliminary hearing.
Tr. 77:11-22.
Although Defendant Massa may not have referred to a specific defense under
Chapter 563, the preliminary hearing transcript does show that the same basic issue of
justification and absolute immunity were presented in his prior adjudication.
Second, Defendant Massa argues that the prior adjudication did not result in a
final judgment on the merits because “the jury verdict is being challenged and is
currently pending before the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Southern District.” This
argument, however, is moot because the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Southern
District affirmed the trial court’s judgment on July 9, 2013. State v. Massa, No. SD
31795, 2013 WL 3422895, at *1 (Mo. Ct. App. Jul. 9, 2013). Furthermore, “[u]nder
Missouri law, a judgment on the merits at the trial-court level is considered a final
judgment for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel, even if the appeal of that
judgment is still pending.” Noble v. Shawnee Gun Shop, Inc., 316 S.W. 3d 364 (Mo.
App. W.D. 2010) (citing Consumers Oil Co. v. Spiking, 717 S.W. 2d 245, 251 (Mo. App.
W.D. 1986)).
Finally, Defendant Massa argues that the trial court did not allow him to fully
litigate the issue of his absolute defense rights. For issue preclusion to apply, the issue
raised in the second proceeding need only to have been raised in the first proceeding
by the party sought to be precluded in a proceeding that afforded a full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issue. Simmons, 77 F.3d at 1094.

There is no further

requirement that the party actually take advantage of that opportunity to fully and fairly
litigate the issue. Id. During the preliminary hearing, counsel for Defendant Massa
3

raised the issue of justifiable homicide and suggested that the court could discharge
Defendant Massa if it found that he has acted reasonably. Tr. 77:11-22. The Court
sustained the objection, indicating that it was “not so inclined” at that point. Id.
Subsequently, the Court found probable cause to believe the defendant committed the
crime as charged, and was therefore, not justified or entitled to absolute immunity.
Furthermore, Defendant Massa was tried on those charges and found guilty by a jury of
involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, a violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.024.
Therefore, the jury also found that Defendant Massa’s actions were not justified.
The Court finds that the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, as well as
Missouri issue preclusion law bar Defendant Massa from re-litigating the issue of
whether he is entitled to absolute immunity.
IV.

Conclusion
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant Massa’s Request for Hearing

Pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.074 and Motion to Dismiss Count I, Count III, and
Count V of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 105) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
Dated: August 5, 2013
Kansas City, Missouri

4