JAMES DALE EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED J. VASEL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a plaintiff cannot relitigate the validity of his conviction in a civil rights action based on alleged false testimony at a prior habeas corpus hearing.
Plaintiff sued a police officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the officer's false testimony at a habeas corpus hearing caused him to lose his case.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, James Dale Edwards, brings this action for damages against a St. Louis police officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court (Judge Regan) granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
The relevant background in this case indicates that Edwards was convicted of first degree murder in a Missouri state court and on appeal the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed that conviction. State v. Edwards, 435 S.W. 2d 1 (1968). Thereafter he sought habeas corpus relief in the federal courts and ultimately received a hearing on the merits of his claim. The district court denied him relief, Edwards v. Swenson, 327 F.Supp. 303 (E.D.Mo.1971), and on appeal this court affirmed after a thorough consideration of Edward’s claim of a violation of his constitutional rights. Edwards v. Swenson, 454 F. 2d 1106 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 909, 92 S.Ct. 1619, 31 L.Ed.2d 820 (1972).
In this proceeding, appellant contends that appellee Vasel, a major in the St. Louis County police force, testified falsely at appellant’s habeas corpus hearing, which caused Edwards to lose his case. Thus, Edwards seeks to assess blame for his continued deprivation of liberty upon Major Vasel and demands damages.
The basic issue concerning the validity of Edward’s conviction has already been tendered to and resolved by both the state and federal courts. In resolving that issue the courts have made credibility findings adverse to plaintiff’s position. This question need not be litigated anew in the guise of a civil rights action against a police officer-witness. We approve of the district court’s summary dismissal of the action on the merits for the reasons enunciated by Judge Regan in an opinion reported at 349 F. Supp. 164 (E.D.Mo.1972).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cardillo v. Zyla, 486 F.2d 473 (1st Cir. 1973)
-
Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863 (8th Cir. 1979)
-
Triplett v. Azordegan, 570 F.2d 819 (8th Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fay v. California, 406 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1972)
- Redden v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1972)
- Edwards v. Swenson, 454 F.2d 1106 (8th Cir. 1972)