## Facts

- Mark Manicki was a probationary police officer for the City of Ottawa, Illinois.
- Manicki gave investigators a statement in a criminal investigation of a fight between two officers, identifying one officer as the instigator.
- Manicki alleged the police chief, Brian Zeilmann, pressured him to change his statement to reduce potential criminal exposure for the favored officer.
- After Manicki refused, Zeilmann sent a letter to the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners stating Manicki had performed inadequately and recommending termination.
- The Board terminated Manicki without a hearing, relying on Zeilmann’s letter.
- Manicki first sued in Illinois state court against the Board and Zeilmann, alleging (among other things) lack of due process and that Zeilmann’s letter was retaliatory.
- The state court entered judgment for the defendants.
- Manicki later filed a federal § 1983 action against Zeilmann and the City, alleging First Amendment retaliation based on the same events; the district court dismissed on res judicata.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois res judicata (claim preclusion) barred Manicki’s federal § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim because his earlier Illinois state-court action arose from the same transaction and ended in a final judgment on the merits.
2. Whether the City of Ottawa and the Board (sued in the first action) were sufficiently identical parties or in privity for claim-preclusion purposes.
3. Whether Manicki had a full opportunity to litigate his § 1983 retaliation theory in the earlier state-court action.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal action.
- The court held the federal claim was barred by Illinois res judicata because it arose from the same transaction and operative facts as the state-court case: Manicki’s termination allegedly caused by Zeilmann’s retaliatory letter.
- The court found the party-identity requirement satisfied because Zeilmann was a defendant in both suits and the City was in privity with the Board that made the termination decision.
- The court rejected arguments that defendants had to warn Manicki about future preclusion and distinguished authority where the first case did not plead or place at issue the alleged retaliatory motive.
- Because Illinois courts have jurisdiction to hear § 1983 claims, Manicki could have brought the First Amendment theory in the initial state-court litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois claim preclusion, a later suit is barred when (1) a court of competent jurisdiction entered a final judgment on the merits, (2) the parties are identical or in privity, and (3) the causes of action are the same.
- Illinois uses a “same transaction or operative facts” test; a plaintiff cannot split claims by asserting different legal theories based on the same core facts and requested relief.
- Claim preclusion bars not only claims actually litigated, but also claims that could have been raised in the first action if they arise from the same transaction.
- A municipal entity may be in privity with a related municipal decisionmaking body for res judicata purposes when the challenged action is part of the same governmental relationship and decision.
- There is no general requirement that defendants give notice that a judgment may later have claim-preclusive effect; res judicata applies by operation of law once the prerequisites are met.

## Conclusion

Because Manicki’s state-court case and federal § 1983 case both challenged the same termination and relied on the same alleged retaliatory letter as the causal basis for discharge, Illinois claim preclusion barred the later federal action, and the dismissal was affirmed.


Manicki v. Zeilmann, 443 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2006)