BAKER v. YOUNG et al

Filing 9

ENTRY dismissing action and Directing entry of final judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/18/2015 (dist made)(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ANTWAN BAKER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DALE YOUNG detective, BRIMER detective, )
DINGS detective, SORIA detective,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-00793-TWP-DML

Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
The Entry of July 21, 2015, gave the Plaintiff Antwan Baker (“Mr. Baker”) the opportunity
to show cause why this civil action should not be dismissed because each of the claims alleged is
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In response, Mr. Baker argues that he filed a
complaint against the same defendants based on the same circumstances on February 3, 2014, in
case number 1:14-cv-153-WTL-DML. That complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.
No relief is warranted on this basis alone. First, this information is contrary to what the
plaintiff reported in the complaint associated with this action.

===

See dkt. 1, at page 4. In addition, the complaint in 1:14-cv-153-WTL-DML was dismissed because
the complaint shows on its face that the plaintiff suffered no Fourth Amendment or other violation
of his federally secured rights. The Court wrote, “Baker’s complaint thus shows on its face that he
has no plausible claim under § 1983.” Case 1:14-cv-153-WTL-DML, dkt. 15 at p. 4. The fact that
the complaint was dismissed without prejudice does not mean that the plaintiff can file the same
claims more than a year later and expect a different result. Nor, did the prior action toll the statute
of limitations for filing a new civil action based on the same facts. If the plaintiff disagreed with
the Court’s ruling in 1:14-cv-153-WTL-DML, his remedy would be to appeal that decision.
Under these circumstances, this action must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
See Koch v. Gregory, 536 Fed. Appx. 659 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating that when the language of the
complaint plainly shows that the statute of limitations bars the suit, dismissal under § 1915A is
appropriate). Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
The clerk is directed to update the docket sheet to reflect the plaintiff’s DOC # consistent
with the distribution portion of this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 8/18/2015

Distribution:
ANTWAUN BAKER
DOC # 231028
MIAMI - CF
MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
3038 West 850 South
BUNKER HILL, IN 46914