Lewis v. Federal Bureau Prisons et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Lewis's complaint R. 1 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. The Court will enter an appropriate judgment. 3. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 06/18/2013.(KJA)cc: COR, mailed paper copy to pro se filer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LONDON

DARRYL LESTER LEWIS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and
USP MCCREARY,
Defendants.
****

****

Civil No. 6: 13-101-KKC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

****

****

Plaintiff Darryl Lester Lewis filed this action on April 22, 2013, pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his complaint, Lester claimed that
prison officials had failed to protect him from an assault by other prisoners, as a result of which he
suffered brain damage and dementia, damage to his right eye, a blood clot in his right leg, several
lost teeth, and severe scarring, and then failed to give him proper medical treatment. [R. 1]
On May 16, 2013, the Court entered an Order noting that Lewis had made the same
allegations in Lewis v. Warden John Doe, No. 1:12-CV-7864 (N.D. Ill. 2012), claims which that
court had dismissed, with prejudice, as time barred on November 28, 2012. The claims therefore
appeared to be barred by principles of claim preclusion. The Court further noted that Lewis’s claims,
predicated upon an assault which he had alleged occurred on April 14, 2009, also appeared to be
barred by Kentucky’s one-year statute of limitations. The Court therefore ordered Lewis to show
cause why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice on or before June 12, 2013. [R. 10] That
date has come and gone without any response from the plaintiff.

As previously noted, because the claims Lewis asserts in his complaint have previously been
dismissed with prejudice in the Northern District of Illinois, the doctrine of claim preclusion prevents
him from re-asserting them in a new lawsuit filed in this Court. Mitchell v. Chapman, 343 F. 3d 811,
819 (6th Cir. 2003); Kane v. Magna Mixer Co., 71 F.3d 555, 560 (6th Cir. 1995). Even if this were
not so, Lewis’s claims appear to arise out of an assault occurring in 2009, and he therefore did not
file suit within the one year permitted under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a). Because he did not do
so, his claims must be dismissed as time-barred. Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511
(6th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Lewis’s complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2.

The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.

3.

This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.

This the 18th day of June, 2013.

2