*RULE: fed ct can issue damages despite an ongoing st ct proceeding (b/c remedy is not equitable or discretionary). Quackenbush.
*BUT: usually fed ct will stay pending state judgment. (And then RJ likely to bar fed damages after state decision final!)
D. See below, V-3(B) (“Interest Analysis”)
E. 1983, Preclusion and Track-Picking
*NB: Preclusion = no civil habeas (st ct denies crim D rights, can go to fed ct twice; st ct denies civil rights, can go to fed ct once).
*RULE: for §1983 worry about track-picking; for habeas worry about exhaustion.
*RULE: §1983 is supplement to available state remedies, state remedies not exclusive. Monroe (state court), Patsy (state admin).
*RULE: If had full & fair opportunity to litigate fed claims in st ct and lost, can’t relitigate in fed ct. McCurry (i.e., issue preclusion).
*RULE: If you could have brought fed claims in st ct but chose not to, can’t relitigate in fed ct. Migra (i.e., claim preclusion).
*RULE: If you could have brought fed claims in fed ct but chose st admin proceeding, can’t relitigate in fed ct. TN v. Elliott (1986).
*RULE: If you could not have brought fed claim in st ct (e.g., antitrust), state CE rules apply: can’t relitigate in fed ct. Marrese.
*RULE: Use state preclusion rule: if st ct would accord CE effect to earlier st ct decision, fed ct should, too. Kremer (1982). E.g., state preclusion rule might explain when a state court adjudication is “final,” or CE effect of settlement. Matsushita (1996).
1. Allen v. McCurry (1980)
*HIST: cops find drugs in McCurry's house; has 4A claim but can't bring habeas (Stone), so brings § 1983. H: Can't bring.
*BF: Wrong under Monroe and Mitchum.
*TA: Easy to get precluded b/c no mutuality req’t! §1983 action precluded even though cops were not parties in prosecution.