Chambers v. Benning et al

Filing 12

MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 01/30/2015. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This case is closed . The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. All pending motions are denied as moot. This dismissal shall count as one of the plaintiff's three allotted "strikes" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g) . The Clerk of the Court is directed to record Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log. Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his case has been dismissed. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order. (DM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 30 January, 2015 01:44:21 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JONATHAN CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZACK BENNING et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14-1461

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in Western Illinois
Correctional Center, pursues claims for alleged constitutional
violations related to false arrest, illegal search and seizure, and
malicious prosecution. The case is before the Court for a merit
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint,
the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally
construing them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and
labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to "'state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721
F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoted citation omitted).
Page 1 of 5

ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that Fairbury Police Department officers
conducted an illegal search of his girlfriend’s residence, which led to
his subsequent arrest and prosecution. Plaintiff alleges that he was
falsely arrested, and that the search was based upon false
information. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the then-Livingston
County State’s Attorney pressured him into accepting a plea
agreement. Plaintiff brought an identical claim against the same
defendants in a case filed August 26, 2014. See Chambers v.
Benning et al, No. 14-CV-2204 (C.D. Ill. filed August 26, 2014). The
previous case was dismissed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). See id., Merit Review Opinion, October 9, 2014,
ECF No. 9.
ANALYSIS
The doctrine of res judicata, also known as claim preclusion,
prohibits a party from re-litigating a “right, question or fact
distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction…in a subsequent suit between the same
parties….” Montana v. U.S., 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979) (citations
omitted); see Ross ex. rel. Ross v. Bd. of Educ. of Tp. High School
Page 2 of 5

Dist. 211, 486 F.3d 279, 282 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Montana). The
doctrine was intended to “protect against the expense and vexation
attending multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and foster
reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of
inconsistent decisions.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892
(2008). Three requirements must be met for res judicata to apply:
(1) an identity of the parties; (2) an identity of the claims; and (3) a
final judgment on the merits. Ross, 486 F.3d at 283. Courts use a
functional approach in determining whether two cases involve the
same claims, and cases will be considered the same for res judicata
purposes if they “arise out of the same transaction” or share a
“common core of operative fact.” Id. If this standard is met, any
claims that were or could have been raised in the prior action are
barred. Id.; Highway J Citizens Group v. U.S. Dep't Transp., 456
F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir.2006).
All three requirements are met here. The Plaintiff named the
same defendants in this lawsuit as he did in the prior suit. The
claims in both lawsuits arise from the search of Plaintiff’s
girlfriend’s residence and Plaintiff’s subsequent prosecution on
criminal charges. In addition, Plaintiff’s allegations are similar and
Page 3 of 5

both complaints contain similar exhibits. As the Court in the first
case entered a final judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff’s claims in the present lawsuit are
barred under the doctrine of res judicata.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
This case is closed. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. All pending motions are denied
as moot.

2)

This dismissal shall count as one of the plaintiff's three
allotted “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The
Clerk of the Court is directed to record Plaintiff's strike in the
three-strike log.

3)

Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even
though his case has been dismissed. The agency having
custody of Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments
to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order.

4)

If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice
of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of
Page 4 of 5

judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to
present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff
does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $455 appellate
filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.
ENTERED:

January 30, 2015

FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5