CIVIL PROCEDURE Section
Professor Cohen
Spring 2003
Final Examination

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This is a closed book exam.

2. You have three (3) hours to complete the exam.

3. There are 2 sections to this exam:

4. Put your exam number at the top of every page of this exam packet, your ParScore answer sheet, used blue books and any exam materials. Do not use your name, student ID number or Social Security Number on any exam materials.

5. Succinctness, organization and clarity will count significantly towards the grade as to the essay.

6. Write on every other page to permit instructor comments. Typists please leave wide margins. Please double-space your answers.

7. When you have finished, return all exam materials, ParScore answer sheet, scratch paper and this exam packet to the exam envelope and submit to the proctor. Do not seal the envelope.

8. Good Luck!


Section 1: ESSAY

PROBLEM ONE (worth 20 points):

After being beaten by his fellow inmates at the DeKalb County Jail in the State of Euphoria, Frank Wayne filed suit in federal district court against: DeKalb County Sheriff Pat Jarvis in both his individual and official capacities; the DeKalb County Sheriff's Department (the "Sheriff's Department"); and seven "John Doe" deputy sheriffs in both their individual and official capacities. Wayne alleged violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as state law violations, and sought monetary damages.

By the time Wayne discovered the identity of the deputy sheriffs he wanted to sue, the statute of limitations had run. The district court granted Wayne's motion to amend his complaint to add those deputies' names in place of the "John Doe" defendants, but thereafter granted the named deputies' motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. Wayne contends that ruling was in error.

A. FACTS

Wayne was incarcerated at the DeKalb County Jail in 1993. While he was in a holding cell awaiting his housing assignment, another inmate told him that he would be placed in Dormitory E-2-A ("E-2-A"), a medium-security dorm, if he said he was homosexual. On May 19, 1993, Officer L.J. Roscoe, a classification officer, interviewed Wayne to determine his housing assignment. Desiring to be placed in the E-2-A dorm, Wayne told Officer Roscoe (falsely, he now says) that he was bisexual, and Officer Roscoe indicated on the inmate classification form that Wayne required special housing "due to sexual preference." Wayne was placed in E-2-A, where he wanted to be.

On June 8, 1993, Wayne was attacked by Corey Baker while both were housed in E-2-A. Wayne was taken to the staff nurse, who found no injuries, and was returned to E-2-A. Upon his return, Wayne was attacked by four other inmates, including Nick Tanner and Thomas Loyal but not including Corey Baker. Eventually, seven deputy sheriffs arrived to break up the fight and defuse the situation by removing Wayne from E-2-A. When the deputy sheriffs led Wayne back into E-2-A to identify his attackers, Loyal began beating on Wayne again; the deputy sheriffs eventually regained control of the situation. Wayne alleges that these attacks caused continuing back and neck pain, limited his ability to work and function physically, and resulted in mental and emotional trauma.


B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 23, 1995, Wayne filed a pro se complaint against Sheriff Pat Jarvis in both his individual and official capacities, the DeKalb County Sheriff's Department, and "Seven Unknown Deputy Sheriffs" in both their individual and official capacities, alleging that they had violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that they had violated state law. Because the assaults took place on June 8, 1993, the two-year statute of limitations for this claim expired on June 8, 1995. Wayne moved to proceed in forma pauperis, (which means he didn’t have to pay costs) which delayed service of process on the specifically identified defendants--Sheriff Jarvis and the Sheriff's Department--until July 6, 1995. Wayne did not serve process on the unidentified deputy sheriffs at the same time because he did not know their identities.

On August 8, 1995, Sheriff Jarvis timely filed his answer to Wayne's first set of mandatory interrogatories, and that answer identified seven individual deputies as potential witnesses: Ricky L. Long, Shanton Benjamin Hines, Charlton L. Bivins, Darryl L. Tutt, Timothy F. Melton, William Winston, and Darren W. Benedict. On September 5, 1995, Wayne moved to amend his complaint by adding those seven specific deputies as parties in place of the seven "John Doe" deputy sheriffs referred to in the original complaint. On October 27, 1995, the district court granted that motion. By December 8, 1995, Wayne had served all seven of the individual deputy sheriffs with the amended complaint.

On June 14, 1996, the individual deputy sheriff defendants moved to dismiss all of Wayne's claims against them because he had failed to serve them with the complaint or amended complaint before the statute of limitations ran. On December 17, 1996, the district court granted their motion to dismiss with prejudice, and the case went on as to Sheriff Jarvis.

QUESTION 1:

The decision of the trial court as to the deputies has been appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals based on 28 USC 1292(b). You are a clerk for the judge to whom the case has been assigned. The judge wants to know if the district court judge was correct or not, and why. Please submit a succinct, clear and well-organized memo. The judge has informed you that she has a number of other cases on her docket, and does not have unlimited time to read a lengthy memo, but wants to be assured that she is correct on the law, and thus the law on the subject is of utmost importance to her. She wants you to separate the law from its application.


PROBLEM TWO (WORTH 20 POINTS):

While the above appeal was pending, the case went to trial as to Sheriff Jarvis alone. After trial by jury, the jury found for the plaintiff, and awarded damages of $8,240.00. The trial court upheld the verdict, and entered judgment for that amount. Within several months there was a recall vote and Sheriff Jarvis was ousted from office and a new sheriff, Mike Hennessey, was elected. Promptly thereafter, a group of incarcerated gay prisoners brought suit against Sheriff Hennessey, claiming that the above practices were continuing, and seeking to enjoin him to create separate facilities for gays based on violation of both federal constitutional and statutory law.

The parties are raising issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Defendant is arguing that plaintiff is barred from bringing the action based on res judicata. Plaintiff is saying that res judicata does not apply, but that collateral estoppel operates to preclude defendant’s denying anything as to the classification system and conditions within Dormitory E-2-A.

QUESTION 2

You are a law clerk for the federal trial judge, who has asked you to research and write a succinct memo as to the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Since he has another clerk working on the same issues, he has asked that you organize your opinion with the law stated as to each of the issues at the outset, followed by your explanation and your conclusion.