## Facts

- Charles Frier, Jr. repeatedly parked vehicles in a narrow alley in Vandalia, Illinois, obstructing passage.
- After leaving notes requesting that he move a car, police arranged for a local garage to tow it and left a note telling him where to retrieve it; no parking citation issued.
- Frier refused to pay towing/storage fees and continued parking vehicles in the alley.
- In 1983, police had four of Frier’s vehicles towed by local garages.
- Frier filed multiple Illinois replevin actions against the City and the towing garages seeking return of the vehicles.
- One replevin suit was voluntarily dismissed after he recovered vehicles; the remaining cases were consolidated and tried.
- The state court found the City lawfully removed the vehicles as obstructions and denied replevin.
- Frier then filed a federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the City’s policy of providing no pre-tow or post-tow hearing violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, seeking equitable relief and damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Frier’s prior Illinois replevin litigation precluded his later federal § 1983 procedural due process claim arising from the same vehicle tows.
2. Whether towing vehicles without providing a hearing before or promptly after the tow violates procedural due process (addressed but not dispositive).

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal action on the ground of claim preclusion.
- The court held the federal § 1983 claim arose from the same transaction as the earlier state replevin actions: the towing and retention of Frier’s vehicles.
- Differences in legal theory (state replevin versus federal due process) did not avoid preclusion where both suits relied on a common core of operative facts.
- The court noted that automobiles are protected property interests and that delayed process may raise due process concerns, but it did not decide the constitutional merits because preclusion controlled.
- A concurring judge agreed with the result but would have resolved the case on the merits summary-judgment analysis rather than claim preclusion.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts must give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect they would receive in the state’s courts.
- A second suit is barred by claim preclusion when the parties are the same (or in privity) and the later claim is based on the same cause of action.
- Causes of action are treated as identical when they arise from a “common core of operative facts,” meaning the evidence supporting the second claim would substantially support the first.
- Claim preclusion applies even when the later suit asserts a different legal theory, including a federal constitutional claim under § 1983, if it stems from the same transaction and could have been raised earlier.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Frier could not relitigate disputes arising from the towing of his vehicles by recasting them as a federal procedural due process claim after losing related state replevin actions, because both suits derived from the same operative facts and were therefore barred by claim preclusion.


Frier v. City of Vandalia, 770 F.2d 699 (7th Cir. 1985)