Mate v. Mohr et al

Filing 6

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 3 Report and Recommendations re IRS Summons. Signed by Senior Judge Peter C Economus on 8/6/2014. (ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
WINNER DAWAN MATE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:14-cv-747
Judge Peter C. Economus

GARY MOHR, et al.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff Winner Dawan Mate, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this case alleging
that Defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by imposing a sentence of
post-conviction control in 2006. In an Order and Report and Recommendation dated July 11,
2014, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
recommended that the case be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2)
provides that “the court shall dismiss the case . . . if . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious
[or] (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” The Magistrate Judge found that
the action is barred by res judicata, as this case essentially duplicates a previous case before this
Court, case number 12-cv-834 (the “2012 Case”):
In the instant action, Plaintiff simply reasserts the same claims,
causes of action, and injuries arising out of the same facts that he
alleged in the 2012 Case. The Court made no assertion that its
dismissal of Plaintiff’s previous case was without prejudice. Thus,
the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant § 1915(e) in the 2012
Case was a dismissal with prejudice, i.e., a final decision on the
merits.
(Dkt. 3 at 5 (citing Burton v. Cleveland Ohio Empowerment Zone, 102 F. App’x 461, 463 (6th
Cir. 2004) (dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e) constitutes an adjudication on the merits for
purposes of res judicata) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992) (holding that the
dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint for frivolousness under § 1915 can “have a res

judicata effect on frivolousness determinations for future in forma pauperis petitions”)); Smith v.
Morgan, 75 F. App’x 505, 507 (6th Cir. 2003)).) On July 25, 2014, Plaintiff requested review by
the District Judge.
Plaintiff first argues that, because the order dismissing the 2012 Case did not specify
“with prejudice,” it is presumed to be without prejudice, and res judicata does not apply. In the
absence of language specifying otherwise, however, the 2012 Case was dismissed with
prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[u]nless the dismissal order
states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—
except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—
operates as an adjudication on the merits.” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (emphasis added).)
Arguing the merits of his case, Plaintiff also objects to the language on page one of the
Report and Recommendation which states that the action is recommended for dismissal due to
failure to state a claim. However, because res judicata bars his complaint, the Court cannot
reach the merits of his claims.
Plaintiff also argues that res judicata does not apply because the Sixth Circuit appeal of
the 2012 Case was dismissed for want of prosecution, which he asserts is without prejudice to
refiling. However, the dismissal of his appeal, and his ability or inability to refile that appeal,
have no bearing on the application of res judicata to subsequent cases filed in this Court.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that the state officials named as defendants cannot claim
immunity. As discussed above, however, because res judicata bars his complaint, the Court
cannot reach the merits of his claims.

2

Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by
res judicata. Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 3)
and DISMISSES this case. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3