Allen v. McCurry

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Civil Procedure

449 U.S. 90 (1980)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataSection 1983Preclusionissue preclusion42 U.S.C. § 198328 U.S.C. § 1738

Facts

Before his Missouri criminal trial, McCurry moved to suppress evidence seized after police entered his home without a warrant following a shootout. The state trial court suppressed evidence found in dresser drawers and tires but refused to suppress evidence in plain view, and McCurry was convicted. Because he did not claim that the state courts denied him a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim, Stone v. Powell barred federal habeas review. He then brought a § 1983 damages suit alleging, among other things, an unconstitutional search and seizure, and the officers asserted collateral estoppel based on the state-court suppression ruling.

Issue

Does the unavailability of federal habeas corpus under Stone v. Powell prevent police officers from invoking collateral estoppel in a § 1983 damages action based on a state court's prior rejection of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim? More generally, does § 1983 create a categorical exception to ordinary preclusion rules for issues fully and fairly litigated in state court?

Rule

Nothing in § 1983 creates a categorical bar to applying traditional collateral estoppel or res judicata principles to state-court judgments. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 and traditional preclusion doctrine, a federal court must give preclusive effect to a state-court determination when the state court, acting within its proper jurisdiction, gave the parties a full and fair opportunity to litigate the federal issue; Stone v. Powell's limitation on habeas review does not alter that result.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Devin Cole was prosecuted for drug possession after Cleveland police searched his apartment. Before trial, the state court held an evidentiary hearing on Devin's Fourth Amendment suppression motion, denied it, and the conviction became final on appeal. Devin then filed a federal § 1983 damages action against the officers alleging the same search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Assuming Ohio courts would treat the suppression ruling as issue-preclusive, what is the strongest argument for the officers in federal court?

Explanation. The majority held that § 1983 does not authorize unrestricted relitigation of issues already decided in state court. Under § 1738, a federal court must give state judgments the same preclusive effect they would receive in that State, so long as the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. There is no categorical § 1983 right to one unencumbered federal hearing.