Lexplug logoLexplug

Painter v. Harvey

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
863 F.2d 329 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state law counterclaim is compulsory under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a), and thus within a federal court's ancillary jurisdiction, if it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's federal claim. A primary factor in this determination is whether substantially the same evidence will support or refute both the claim and the counterclaim.


Facts:

  • On November 9, 1984, police officer Larry Harvey stopped Florhline Painter for erratic driving and arrested her for driving while intoxicated.
  • Harvey handcuffed Painter and transported her to a local jail in his patrol car.
  • Upon arrival at the jail, Painter's blouse was unbuttoned, one breast was exposed, and her shoes, panty hose, and underpants had been removed.
  • Painter alleged that Officer Harvey had raped her during the transport to the jail.
  • Harvey contended that Painter had removed her own clothing in the back of the patrol car.
  • On April 9, 1985, Painter appeared before the Luray Town Council to file a formal complaint against Harvey.
  • Painter also issued a written statement to a local newspaper alleging Harvey had used excessive force, torn her blouse, and put marks on her breast during the arrest.
  • Excerpts from Painter's complaint were subsequently published in the local newspaper.

Procedural Posture:

  • Florhline Painter sued Officer Larry Harvey in federal district court, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for lack of probable cause and use of excessive force.
  • Harvey filed a counterclaim against Painter for defamation under state law, based on her statements to the Town Council and the media.
  • The case was tried before a jury.
  • The jury found in favor of Harvey on Painter's § 1983 claim.
  • The jury also found in favor of Harvey on his defamation counterclaim, awarding him compensatory and punitive damages.
  • After the verdict, Painter moved to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
  • The district court denied Painter's motion, ruling that the counterclaim was compulsory and therefore within the court's ancillary jurisdiction.
  • Painter appealed the district court's denial of her motion to dismiss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state law defamation counterclaim, based on a plaintiff's public statements about the circumstances of her arrest, arise from the same 'transaction or occurrence' as her federal § 1983 claim for excessive force during that same arrest, making it a compulsory counterclaim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a)?


Opinions:

Majority - Wilkinson, J.

Yes, the state law defamation counterclaim is compulsory because it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's federal claim. The court applied a four-part test, focusing primarily on whether the same evidence would support or refute both the claim and the counterclaim. Here, the central issue in both Painter's § 1983 claim and Harvey's defamation counterclaim is identical: what transpired during Painter's arrest. The jury had to determine the truth of what happened on November 9, 1984, to resolve both claims. Because the same core evidence is central to both actions, they are inextricably and logically connected. This approach promotes judicial economy and fairness by avoiding multiple trials with duplicative evidence, which is the core purpose of Rule 13(a).



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the 'same evidence' test as a key, though not exclusive, factor in determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a). It establishes that the factual and evidentiary overlap between claims is more important than the different legal theories (e.g., federal civil rights vs. state defamation) upon which they are based. The ruling serves as a warning to civil rights plaintiffs that making public statements about the underlying events of their lawsuit can expose them to a compulsory state law defamation counterclaim within the same federal action. This may influence litigation strategy, potentially chilling some public advocacy by plaintiffs while their cases are pending.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Painter v. Harvey (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"