Slate v. Hooper

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
AT KNOXVILLE January 29, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt
JOHN WAYNE SLATE, SR., ) C/A NO. Clerk
03A01-9809-CH-00299
)
Petitioner-Appellant, )
)
)
v. ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE
) SEVIER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
)
)
)
JUDGE BEN W. HOOPER, II, and )
AL SCHMUTZER, JR., )
) HONORABLE TELFORD E. FORGETY,
Defendants-Appellees. ) CHANCELLOR
For Appellant For Appellees
JOHN WAYNE SLATE, SR. JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter
Mountain City, Tennessee
MICHAEL E. MOORE
Solicitor General
HEATHER C. ROSS
Assistant Attorney General
Nashville, Tennessee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J.
1
This is a lawsuit filed by a prisoner in state custody
seeking the disbarment of the judge who tried him and the
district attorney general who prosecuted him. The court below
dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, finding that “these charges are
more appropriately brought under the procedures set forth in
Tenn.Code Ann. § 17-5-101 et seq. and/or under Supreme Court Rule
9.” The plaintiff appealed. We affirm, but for a reason
different from that expressed by the trial court.
The complaint in the instant case is essentially
identical to an earlier complaint filed by the plaintiff in the
same court. That complaint was also dismissed. On appeal, we
treated the plaintiff’s complaint as one for disbarment, and
affirmed in an opinion filed at Knoxville on February 27, 1998.
See Slate v. Schmutzer and Hooper, 1998 WL 102072, C/A No. 03A01-
9708-CV-00369 (Tenn.App. 1998)(perm. app. denied by the Supreme
Court). The matters raised in the instant case are res judicata.
The Supreme Court has recently explained that
[t]he term “res judicata” is defined as a
“[r]ule that a final judgment rendered by a
court of competent jurisdiction on the merits
is conclusive as to the rights of the parties
and their privies, and, as to them,
constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent
action involving the same claim, demand or
cause of action.... [T]o be applicable, it
requires identity of cause of action, or
person and parties to action, and of quality
in persons for or against whom claim is
made.”
Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459
(Tenn. 1995)(quoting from BLACK ’S LAW DICTIONARY 1172 (5th ed.
1979)). Or, stated another way, “res judicata bars a second suit
2
between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of
action with respect to all issues which were or could have been
litigated in the former suit.” Richardson, 913 S.W.2d at 459.
In the earlier suit, it was determined that the plaintiff could
not pursue disbarment of the defendants in a court proceeding.
That issue, having been found adverse to the plaintiff in the
first suit, cannot be re-litigated in this action.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to
the provisions of Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals.1
Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant. This case is
remanded to the trial court for the collections of costs assessed
there, pursuant to applicable law.
__________________________
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
CONCUR:
_________________________
Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
_________________________
Herschel P. Franks, J.
1
Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals, provides as follows:
The Court, with the concurrence of all judges
participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or
modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum
opinion when a formal opinion would have no
precedential value. When a case is decided by
memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM
OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be
cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent
unrelated case.
3