CA7: Issue preclusion: Failed state IAC claim on search precluded § 1983 suit over the same search

Failed state court IAC claim against lawyer for not moving to suppress a search that actually decided the merits of the claim precluded a § 1983 suit over the same search. Easterling v. Moeller, 418 Fed. Appx. 495 (7th Cir. 2011) (unpublished):

On appeal Easterling argues that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate whether the search of his bag violated the Fourth Amendment and thus issue preclusion should not bar his § 1983 claim. Federal courts give a state judgment the same preclusive effect that it would receive in state court. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S. Ct. 411, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1980); Burke v. Johnston, 452 F.3d 665, 669 (7th Cir. 2006). In Wisconsin, a party may not relitigate a question of fact or law decided in prior litigation if the resolution of that issue was necessary to the judgment and giving it preclusive effect would not be fundamentally unfair. … Here, Easterling actually litigated his challenge to the bag search in the context of claiming that his lawyer was ineffective for not moving to suppress the fruits of that search. In rejecting that claim, the state courts concluded that Easterling would not have prevailed on his proposed Fourth Amendment claim because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag once he handed it over to Diener. Easterling, Nos. 2004 AP 934-CR & 2005 AP 1224-CR, slip op. at 3. Easterling has not argued that it is fundamentally unfair to preclude him from relitigating this conclusion, and thus issue preclusion prevents him from reasserting his objection to the search of his bag in his § 1983 claim.