02-3466 Wilhelm v. County of Milwaukee

Listen to this article

“Wisconsin uses the ‘transactional analysis’ of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments as a guide in applying the rule. All claims arising out of one transaction or one factual situation are treated as being a part of a single cause of action, and they must be litigated together: Under this approach, ‘the claim extinguished includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose.’ Northern States Power, 525 N.W.2d at 729, quoting Restatement (2d) of Judgments § 24(1) (1982). The Wisconsin courts focus on facts, not legal theories, to determine whether an action is precluded. See Northern States Power, 525 N.W.2d at 729 (‘[T]he number of substantive theories that may be available to a plaintiff is immaterial-if they all arise from the same factual underpinnings they must all be brought in the same action or be barred from future consideration.’). Froebel v. Meyer, 217 F.3d 928, 934 (7th Cir. 2000). For claim preclusion to apply, the actual litigation of the issue is not required. The earlier judgment is conclusive as to ‘all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated’ in that proceeding. Jantzen v. Baker, 388 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Wis. App. 1986) (emphasis in original). We see no reason that Wilhelm’s present civil rights action should not have been joined with his second state court civil suit. State courts are competent to decide cases brought under § 1983. As the Court said in Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 366 (2001), ‘state courts of “general jurisdiction” can adjudicate cases invoking federal statutes, such as § 1983, absent congressional specification to the contrary.’ Here, both the state court case and the present case involve alleged damages to Wilhelm arising out of the interruption of his employment with Milwaukee County. To require him to litigate all issues in one forum is well within the claim preclusion rules as set out by the Wisconsin courts.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Goodstein, Mag. J., Evans, J.