An arrestee was precluded from pursuing a state court lawsuit against a city and its police officers claiming harassment and excessive use of force where he had previously filed a federal lawsuit against the city raising the same claims based on the same facts and circumstances, which the federal court found to be frivolous. Black v. City of Tupelo, No. 2002-CA-01919-SCT, 853 So. 2d 1221 (Miss. 2003). [N/R]
    332:116 Motorist whose lawsuit against the state of North Carolina and a state trooper in his official capacity were previously dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds could still file a second lawsuit, making identical claims, against the trooper in his individual capacity. Andrews v. J.M. Daw, #98-6329, 201 F.3d 521 (4th Cir. 2000).
     333:131 City could not be held liable for alleged failure to adequately train officers in the use of deadly force when there was no showing that officers did anything wrong in firing at men who had fired at them and then attempted to run away; plaintiffs could not relitigate the issue of whether they had fired at the officers after they were convicted of assault on a police officer, which resolved the same factual question. Jones v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:98 CV 2158 DDN, 92 F.Supp. 2d 949 (E.D. Mo. 2000).
     286:154 Suspect convicted of second-degree murder after his motion to suppress his confession as coerced was denied was precluded from later pursuing federal civil rights lawsuit based on alleged coercion of confession through physical force and racial slurs; state court's consideration of suppression motion gave him a "full and fair" opportunity to litigate issue of confession and he was barred by "issue preclusion" from relitigating it. Simmons v. O'Brien, 77 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 1996).