-RBC Johnson v. Johnson et al, No. 1:2010cv00255 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Chiffon E Johnson; DISMISSING case WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28:1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/6/10. (jcp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CHIFFON E. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, vs. MARLAND SANDS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 1:10-CV-255 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on a complaint and in forma pauperis petition filed by Chiffon E. Johnson. For the reasons set forth below, the in forma pauperis petition (DE #2) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). BACKGROUND The claims in this case were previously presented in Johnson v. Sands, 1:09-cv-358 (N.D. Ind. filed December 18, 2009). Both cases were filed by Chiffon E. Johnson ( Johnson ) against the same six defendants.1 In the former case, this court addressed the merits and dismissed the case because it did not state a claim. DISCUSSION A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, Johnson mistakenly states that these claims were not previously presented to this court. (DE #1; Complaint, p. 3.) Though it is unclear whether this mistake was intentional or unintentional, what is clear is that the claims presented in this case have already been dismissed. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating 1 Though the defendant John Hauffman was previously identified as John Kauffman, that is merely a scrivener s error in one of the complaints. Both are identified as Marion Police Officers and both are alleged to have committed the same acts as all of the other defendants. Nevertheless, even if these are different defendants, the claim is still barred by res judicata because both defendants are alleged to have acted in privity with the other defendants. See Highway J Citizens Group v. United States DOT, 456 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 2006). 2 issues that were or could have been raised in that action. The three requirements for res judicata under federal law are: (1) an identity of the parties or their privies; (2) an identity of the causes of actions; and (3) a final judgment on the merits. If these requirements are fulfilled, res judicata bars not only those issues which were actually decided in a prior suit, but also all issues which could have been raised in that action. Simply put, the doctrine of res judicata provides that, when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a case, it is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose. Highway J Citizens Group v. United States DOT, 456 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the parties are the same, the claims are the same, and the prior case was resolved on the merits. Therefore this case is barred by res judicata. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE #2) is DENIED and this case in forma pauperis is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). DATED: August 6, 2010 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.