Elbert v. Carter, No. 16-4077 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
In 2011, plaintiff filed suit against the city and others, in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as violations of state law. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from a no-knock forceful entry into a club.
Before final judgment in the first action, plaintiff filed the present suit, alleging claims arising from the events occurring at the club on the night of the no-knock entry. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court correctly ruled that res judicata barred Counts 1, 2, 5, and 8, because they involved claims against the same parties from the first action, and plaintiff could have brought the new claims in the first action. As to the remaining counts, the court held that they were properly dismissed because these claims arose out of the same raid, and involved defendants who could have been joined in the first action. As the district court explained, allowing plaintiff to circumvent the district court's ruling on his untimely motion for leave to amend in the first action by bringing a second action against the new defendants would unreasonably burden the parties and the court.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Elbert v. City of Kansas City, 667 F. App'x 881 (8th Cir. 2016). The district court correctly ruled that four claims in plaintiff's second suit were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because they involved claims against the same parties from the first action, and plaintiff could have brought the new claims in the first action; the remaining counts, in which plaintiff brought claims arising from the same events involved in the first suit, but against new defendants who were not parties to the first suit, were properly dismissed as the claims arise out of the same raid, and involve defendants who could have been joined in the first action; to allow defendant to circumvent the court's ruling in the first action refusing to allow an untimely motion for leave to amend by bringing a second action against the new defendants would unreasonably burden the parties and the court. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 1, 2018.
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.