Mitchell v. Polk County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing the complaint; directing the clerk to CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 6/5/2017. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DEMETRICE MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:17-cv-1258-T-23AEP

POLK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
This action proceeds on a complaint that Mitchell filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, which action the court transferred
to this district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Venue is proper in this district court
because the action is based on events that occurred in Polk County, Florida.
Mitchell’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated his civil rights by
searching his home with neither permission nor a warrant. Mitchell has neither
moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the required filing fee.
Nevertheless, whether he proceeds in forma pauperis or he pays the filing fee, the
district court must dismiss an action if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (2) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (if
proceeding in forma paupeis) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (if the filing fee is paid).

Mitchell pursued this action against these same defendants in an earlier action,
Mitchell v. Polk County Sheriff’s Office, 8:14-cv-1822-T-17JSS, which concluded with the
granting of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 54 in 14-cv-1822) Although the
complaint receives a generous interpretation, see, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972) (per curiam), and Kirby v. Siegleman, 195 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 1999),
Mitchell is precluded from again pursuing his action against these defendants. Morris
v. May, 570 Fed. App’x 903, 904–05 (11th Cir. 2014),1 explains that Mitchell’s
complaint is subject to dismissal.
When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the district court
must dismiss the case if it determines that the action is
frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). For example, if it is clear
that an affirmative defense bars the complaint, dismissal at the
screening stage is appropriate. Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons and
Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 (11th Cir.1990) (“[I]f the district
court sees that an affirmative defense would defeat the action, a
[dismissal on the grounds of frivolity] is allowed”).
....
One of the affirmative defenses that may lead to dismissal at the
screening stage is the doctrine of claim preclusion (otherwise
known as res judicata).

Mitchell’s earlier action was based on the same asserted claims and against the
same defendants as in the present complaint. “The doctrine of res judicata in federal
law prohibits the filing of claims which were raised or could have been raised in an
earlier proceeding.” United States v. Barnette, 10 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir.), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 816 (1994) (quotation marks omitted). Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease

1

“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as
persuasive authority.” 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.
-2-

Fin. Corp., 904 F.2d 1498, 1501 (11th Cir. 1990), explains that a second action is
barred under the principle of claim preclusion if four elements are present:
Claim preclusion bars a subsequent lawsuit when four elements
are present: “(1) there must be a final judgment on the merits,
(2) the decision must be rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction, (3) the parties, or those in privity with them, must
be identical in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action must
be involved both cases.” I.A. Durbin, 793 F.2d at 1549.

Each element exists in the present action. Mitchell’s earlier action
(1) concluded with the granting of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, (2) was decided
by a court with proper jurisdiction, (3) involves the same parties, and (4) asserts the
same cause of action. As a consequence, Mitchell is barred from pursuing the
present action. Moreover, even though he filed his complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Mitchell included the earlier case
number on the face of the complaint.
Accordingly, the civil rights complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The clerk
must close this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 5, 2017.

-3-