Watson v. Metropolitan Enforcement Group of Southern Illinois et al

Filing 32

ORDER: Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 15 , 21 ) are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and all pending motions are TERMINATED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/6/2025. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANA WATSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
METROPOLITAN ENFORCEMENT
GROUP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS,
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE,
BOB PATTERSON, JOE BELIVEAU,
JOSH HUNT, KEVIN CROLLY,
SCOTT PRITCHETT,
KAREN GORDON, TONY LUTHER,
MATT WERNER, and MATT EVERS
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 24-cv-1835-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Dana Watson brings this action against Defendants Metropolitan Enforcement Group of
Southern Illinois (“MEGSI”), Illinois State Police (“ISP”), and ISP individual defendants Bob
Patterson, Joe Beliveau, Josh Hunt, Kevin Crolly, Scott Pritchett, Karen Gordon, Tony Luther,
Matt Werner, and Matt Evers. Watson alleges violations of her constitutional and civil rights
stemming from the failure to have seized property returned to her. Now pending before the
Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 15, 21), which Watson opposes (Docs. 18, 22).
For the following reasons, the motions are GRANTED.
Background
In January 2014, MEGSI officers executed a no-knock warrant at Watson’s home. The
officers searched her home for drugs and seized Watson’s legally owned handgun and cash that
she had been saving.

Page 1 of 4

In 2022, Watson sued MEGSI in state court, alleging the officers had violated her
constitutional rights by among other things, failing to return her property. MEGSI removed the
case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and moved to dismiss. See Watson v. Metro. Enf't Grp. of S.
Illinois, Case No. 22-cv-2555. The Court granted the motion with prejudice, finding the statute
of limitations barred the claims because more than eight years had passed between the allegedly
unlawful conduct and the filing of the Complaint. Watson appealed and the Seventh Circuit
affirmed in August 2023. Watson v. Metro. Enf't Grp. of S. Illinois, No. 23-1412, 2023 WL
5276607, at *1 (7th Cir. Aug. 16, 2023).
Watson filed the instant lawsuit in August 2024, making the identical allegations she
previously raised in the 2022 lawsuit against Defendant MEGSI. Although she adds defendants
in her new lawsuit, the allegations are the same. Specifically, Watson claims that Defendants
violated her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by unlawfully searching her home
in 2014, seizing her property, and failing to return money in the amount of $1892.00 and
handgun which should have been released to her. She also alleges violations of the Civil Rights
Act of 1871, 1964, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Watson also added factual allegations regarding her recent attempts to collect her
property.

She alleges that she contacted various individuals at the Illinois State Police

Department in Spring 2024 to track down her property and was told that it was not in the vault,
and that she was told she would have to go through the courts to get a court order for the release
of her property. She attached numerous documents to her Complaint, including those attached to
her 2022 Complaint and a state court order from March 2024, releasing the money to her.
Watson asserts that the state court clerk has not released the funds, so she filed the instant
lawsuit.

Page 2 of 4

Discussion
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a Complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. Defendants move to dismiss Watson’s Complaint asserting her latest
lawsuit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Watson’s Complaint raises the same allegations against the defendants that she made
against Defendant MEGSI in her 2022 Complaint. “Under res judicata, a final judgment on the
merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or
could have been raised in that action.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). The aim of
the doctrine is to “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial
resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.” Id.
“Res judicata promotes predictability in the judicial process, preserves the limited resources of
the judiciary, and protects litigants from the expense and disruption of being haled into court
repeatedly.” Palka v. City of Chicago, 662 F.3d 428, 437 (7th Cir. 2011).
There are three requirements for res judicata: “(1) a final judgment on the merits ...
entered in the first lawsuit by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes of action
exists; (3) the parties or their privies are identical in both lawsuits.” Doherty v. Fed. Deposit Ins.
Corp., 932 F.3d 978, 983 (7th Cir. 2019). Where it applies, res judicata prevents the relitigation
of claims already litigated as well as those that could have been litigated but were not. Russian
Media Grp., LLC v. Cable Am., Inc., 598 F.3d 302, 310 (7th Cir. 2010).

Page 3 of 4

Here, the elements of res judicata are satisfied. Watson’s allegations are identical to
those she raised against MEGSI in her 2022 lawsuit – that Defendants’ seizure of her property
and failure to return her property were unlawful. The 2022 lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice
and affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. And although Watson did not name ISP and the individual
ISP defendants in her 2022 lawsuit, those defendants are in privity with MEGSI; privity exists
between parties or entities who adequately represent the same legal interests. Chicago Title
Land Tr. Co. v. Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Sales, 664 F.3d 1075, 1080 (7th Cir. 2011). As
noted by the Seventh Circuit, MEGSI is a task force composed of federal, state, and local law
enforcement officers under the umbrella of the ISP. Watson, 2023 WL 5276607, at *1. As such,
Watson could have brought her 2022 lawsuit against ISP and the individual ISP defendants. In
fact, she mentions the individual defendants in her original state court complaint. Accordingly,
the doctrine of res judicata bars her instant lawsuit. 1
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 15, 21) are
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and all pending motions are
TERMINATED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly
and to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 6, 2025
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

1

Even if Watson’s claims were not barred by res judicata, Watson’s additional allegations regarding her attempts to
retrieve her property in state court fail to plausibly state a claim that any of the defendants violated her constitutional
rights under the Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments, or her civil rights under any of the statutes invoked.

Page 4 of 4