Stephens v. Jessup, No. 13-3123 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseStephens visited the Oaklawn Club for gambling. After winning, playing slot machines, Stephens cashed out and left the casino. He returned later that evening and purchased another ticket for use in the slot machines. He was approached by uniformed security personnel and Jessup, a uniformed Hot Springs police officer. They accused Stephens of stealing the cashed-out ticket and detained Stephens while employees reviewed surveillance footage. Stephens alleges that Jessup threatened to “take him to jail immediately” if he did not return the money. Jessup recited Miranda warnings, escorted Stephens to his vehicle, and retrieved the money. An Arkansas state court granted Oaklawn summary judgment. Neither Jessup nor Amtote was a party to that action. Stephens then filed a federal suit against Jessup and Amtote, alleging the same causes of action against these new defendants. The court dismissed, citing issue preclusion. The Eighth Circuit reversed in part, finding that Stephens did not perfect an appeal with respect to Amtote. The court expressed no view on the merits of the Jessup claims, stating that the record is not clear that Stephens is trying to relitigate an issue that was previously decided or that Jessup and Oaklawn represent the same legal right.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. While plaintiff listed one order from which he was appealing in his notice of appeal, he failed to list the order dismissing defendant Amtote, and the court did not have jurisdiction to review this order;the district court erred in finding the claims against defendant Jessup were barred by issue preclusion as the record does not establish that the claims were actually litigated and decided in the parties' prior litigation; nor was the claim barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion; reversed and remanded for further proceeding on plaintiff's claims against defendant Jessup.
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.