Terry Allen Langford, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Rick Day, Acting Administrator of Corrections Division;joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of the Stateof Montana; Marc Racicot, Governor,defendants-appellees, 106 F.3d 408 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 106 F.3d 408 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted Feb. 13, 1996. *Decided Dec. 24, 1996

Before: CANBY, TROTT AND HAWKINS, CIRCUIT JUDGES.


MEMORANDUM** 

Terry Allen Langford, a Montana death-row inmate, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Langford argues that the Montana death penalty statutes violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because they were illegally enacted by the Montana legislature. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The proper place in which to raise this issue is Langford's habeas corpus petition, where he has in fact raised it. We have rejected his contentions in an opinion filed contemporaneously with this memorandum. See Langford v. Day, No. 95-99001, slip op. --- (9th Cir. ----, 19-). The district court examined Langford's claim, however, in the civil rights context because of the "gravity of the death penalty issue." We will do the same.

Whether the Montana death penalty statutes were enacted in violation of the Montana constitution is a question of state law that has been presented to the Montana Supreme Court and was decided on the merits. State v. Langford, 813 P.2d 936, 951 (Mont.1991). Therefore, this issue cannot be relitigated in federal court. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 81 (1977).

In addition, collateral estoppel bars litigation of this issue in a civil case because it was previously adjudicated in Langford's criminal case and (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical to the issue presented here, (2) final judgment was entered on the merits, and (3) Langford, against whom collateral estoppel is asserted, was a party to the prior criminal action. See Aetna Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 673 P.2d 1277, 1279-80 (Mont.1984).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.