Slayton v. Rivera et al

Filing 14

ORDER: The 7 stay is lifted. On de novo review, the Court adopts the recommendation as modified 12 , and overrules Slayton's 13 objections. The modification: Edge wasn't sued in Slayton I, and Rivera, Relvas, Ward, and Reed were dis missed without prejudice in that case. The claim preclusion aspect of res judicata thus has no effect on Slayton's claims against all those individuals. Slayton's claims against them will therefore be dismissed without prejudice. His clai ms against Lloyd though will be dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal counts as a "strike". An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/30/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
BRYAN EDWARD SLAYTON
Reg #11196-074

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 2:16-cv-69-DPM

RIVERA, Warden, FCI-Forrest City;
REL VAS, Captain, FCI-Forrest City;
REED, Segregation Lieutenant, FCIForrest City; WARD, Disciplinary
Hearing Officer, FCI-Forrest City;
LLOYD, SIS Technician, FCI-Forrest
City; and D. EDGE, Warden, FCITexarkana, TX

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1. The stay, Ng 7, is lifted. On de nova review, the Court adopts the
recommendation as modified, Ng 12, and overrules Slayton' s objections, Ng 13.
FED. R. Crv. P. 72(b)(3).
The modification: Edge wasn't sued in Slayton I, and Rivera, Relvas,
Ward, and Reed were dismissed without prejudice in that case. The claim
preclusion aspect of res judicata thus has no effect on Slayton' s claims against
all those individuals. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990);
Pholmann v. Bil-Jax, Inc., 176 F.3d 1110, 1112 (8th Cir. 1999). Slayton's claims

against them will therefore be dismissed without prejudice. His claims

against Lloyd, though, will be dismissed with prejudice based on res judicata
because those claims were decided on the merits against Slayton in his first
case.
2. This dismissal counts as a "strike" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Cf Higgins v. Carpenter, 258 F.3d 797, 801 (8th Cir. 2001) (per

curiam). An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying
Judgment would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. ()
United States District Judge

Jo Mar; :J..O 17

-2-