Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Wiggins v. Murphy

Wiggins v. Murphy, 576 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1978)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-06-01
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to have six state criminal convictions declared illegal and expunged from his records. Citing the fact that the plaintiff had tried the same issues in state court and lost, the district court dismissed the action on the basis of either “res judicata, full faith and credit, or outright lack of jurisdiction . . .” We affirm the dismissal, but only on the basis of res judicata. This court recently held that the doctrine of res judicata does apply to § 1983 actions. Rimmer v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wiggins v. Murphy. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
11 opinions
WIGGINS v. MURPHY,576 F.2d 572(4th Cir. 1978)
ALPHONSO C. WIGGINS, APPELLANT, v. LAWRENCE A. MURPHY, CLERK OF THE COURT,
CRIMINAL COURT OF BALTIMORE, DONALD D. POMERLEAU, POLICE COMMISSIONER AND
WILLIAM F. ROCHFORD, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL RECORDS DIVISION, APPELLEES.
No. 77-2174.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 5, 1978.
Decided June 1, 1978.
Page 573
Peter S. Smith, Baltimore, Md. (Adrienne E. Volenik, Frank C. Derr, Third Year Law Student, Vail A. Kaufman, Third Year Law Student, Maryland Juvenile Law Clinic, on brief), for appellant.

John P. Stafford, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. of Md., Clarence W. Sharp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Crim. Div., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Before BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges, and NORTHROP, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM.
[1] The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to42 U.S.C. § 1983seeking to have six state criminal convictions declared illegal and expunged from his records. Citing the fact that the plaintiff had tried the same issues in state court and lost, the district court dismissed the action on the basis of either "resjudicata,full faith and credit, or outright lack of jurisdiction . . .." We affirm the dismissal, but only on the basis ofres judicata.

[2] This court recently held that the doctrine ofres judicatadoes apply to § 1983 actions.Rimmer v. Fayetteville PoliceDepartment,567 F.2d 273,276(4th Cir. 1977). We perceive no reason whyres judicatashould not bar the relitigation in this case of the same issues which were decided by the state courts. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is

[3] AFFIRMED.Page 1072
  1. Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. ↩