Lingle v. Kibby et al
Filing
85
OPINION entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 8/4/2014. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied 57 , 78 . Plaintiff's expert disclosures are due September 30, 2014. Defendants' expert disclosures are due October 31, 2014. Discovery closes February 27, 2015. Dispositive motions are due March 31, 2015. See written opinion. (KMR, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 04 August, 2014 01:44:53 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LAWRENCE LINGLE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
ALFREDA KIBBY, et al.
Defendants.
11-CV-3101
OPINION
COLIN STIRLING BRUCE, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff Lingle ("Lingle"), proceeds pro se from his detention in
the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center. He pursues a
challenge to a ban on gaming devices. Defendants move for
summary judgment on grounds of res judicata, but their motions
must be denied for reasons explained below.
BACKGROUND
Lingle filed this case on April 12, 2011, challenging a ban on
gaming systems and electronic devices, a claim identified by Judge
Baker, to whom this case was originally assigned. (5/19/11 text
order.)
1
This case was transferred to Judge Myerscough on September
16, 2011. (9/16/11 text order.) On December 7, 2011, Judge
Myerscough directed Defendants to file a motion to dismiss,
addressing whether Lingle stated a claim in this case. Judge
Myerscough cited an order she had entered two months prior in
Schloss v. Ashby, 11-CV-3337, dismissing the same claim for failure
to state a claim. Schloss v. Ashby, 11-CV-3337 (C.D. Ill.)(10/11/11
order). No final judgment had been entered in Schloss when Judge
Myerscough dismissed the gaming device claim in Schloss, though,
because the plaintiffs in Schloss were given leave to file an amended
complaint on a separate, unrelated claim.
As it turns out, Lingle was also a plaintiff in Schloss. Lingle
was thus pursuing two identical challenges to the gaming device
ban, the first in this case filed on April 12, 2011, and the second in
Schloss, filed on August 26, 2011.
On July 17, 2012, Judge Myerscough dismissed this entire
case for failure to state a claim, citing her October 2011 order in
Schloss. A final judgment was entered that day, and Lingle
appealed Judge Myerscough's ruling in this case on July 24, 2012.
2
The next month, on August 10, 2012, Judge Myerscough
dismissed the remaining claim in Schloss, terminating the entire
Schloss case. A final judgment was entered in Schloss on August
10, 2012 and was timely appealed. Eventually, Lingle voluntarily
dropped his appeal in Schloss but continued to pursue his appeal
in this case.
On April 15, 2013, the Seventh Circuit reversed Judge
Myerscough's dismissal of this case as premature, concluding that
a developed factual record was needed to determine whether the
ban on gaming devices was reasonably related to legitimate security
or logistical concerns. (Seventh Circuit Mandate, d/e 46.) In its
remand order, the Seventh Circuit stated, "[W]e note that Lingle’s
claims in this case arguably arise out of the same set of operative
facts as those in Schloss, where he was a plaintiff. Therefore his
complaint might be subject to the defense of claim preclusion. See
Matrix IV, Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi., 649 F.3d 539,
547 (7th Cir. 2011). But the defendants have not asked us to
consider this defense, so at this stage we do not pursue the issue."
Id.
3
ANALYSIS
Res judicata applies if there is: “(1) a final judgment on
the merits in an earlier action, (2) an identity of the cause
of action in both the earlier and later suit, and (3) an
identity of parties or privies in the two suits.” Smith v.
City of Chicago, 820 F.2d 916, 917 (7th Cir.1987) (citing
Lee v. City of Peoria, 685 F.2d 196, 199 (7th Cir.1982));
see Brzostowski v. Laidlaw Waste Sys., Inc., 49 F.3d 337,
338 (7th Cir.1995) (citations omitted).
Tartt v. Northwest Community Hosp., 453 F.3d 817 (7th Cir.
2006).
The question is whether a "final judgment on the merits"
was entered in Schloss case before this case. The answer is
no. Judge Myerscough dismissed the gaming device claim in
Schloss in October, 2011, for failure to state a claim, but the
Schloss case remained alive on a different claim. A final,
appealable judgment was not entered in Schloss until August
10, 2012, after this case was dismissed in its entirety. If res
judicata barred anything, it barred Lingle's claim in Schloss,
not Lingle's claim in this case.
Until the final judgment in Schloss, Judge Myerscough's
dismissal of the gaming device claim in Schloss could have
been reconsidered and revised. See Bank of Lincolnwood v.
4
Federal Leasing, Inc., 622 F.2d 944, 949 n.7 (7th Cir. 1980)("A
judicial determination has no res judicata effect until it is
embodied in a final judgment."). Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b), an order "that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties
does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and
may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment
adjudicating all the claims and all the parties rights and
liabilities."
In short, Judge Myerscough's October 2011 dismissal of
the gaming device claim in Schloss was not a final judgment
for res judicata purposes because the case remained pending
on other claims. The first final judgment was in this case, so
res judicata does not apply. Canedy v. Boardman, 16 F.3d
183, 184 (7th Cir. 1994)(no res judicata issue where two cases
were pending with the same claim and judgment in the case at
issue was entered first).
IT IS THEREFORED ORDERED:
1) Defendants' motions for summary judgment are
denied (57, 78).
5
2) Plaintiff's expert disclosures are due September 30,
2014.
3) Defendants' expert disclosures are due October 31,
2014.
4) Discovery closes February 27, 2015.
5) Dispositive motions are due March 31, 2015.
ENTER:
8/4/2014
FOR THE COURT:
s/Colin Stirling Bruce
COLIN STIRLING BRUCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?