Herrera v. Doe et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 1/18/23. (dw)

Case 3:22-cv-01992-MEM-DB Document 9 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY E. HERRERA,
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants

:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-1992

:

(JUDGE MANNION)

:
:
MEMORANDUM

I.

Background
Plaintiff, Jeffrey E. Herrera, an inmate confined at the Lackawanna

County Prison, Pennsylvania, filed the above caption civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, seeking damages for “false imprisonment
where Petitioner was incarcerated at SCI-Benner Township which took place
from 3/2019 to 10/2019.” (Doc. 1). The named Defendants are ten (10) Jane
and John Does, employed in various positions within the Pennsylvania Board
of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and SCIBenner. Id. Subsequent to the lodging of his complaint, Plaintiff filed an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7).
At this time, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a) to determine whether it should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which

Case 3:22-cv-01992-MEM-DB Document 9 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 6

relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from suit. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant
Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
action as barred by claim preclusion and res judicata.

II.

Factual Allegations
Plaintiff states that “on or about 2017-2018 an increase to [his]

maximum term of imprisonment took place without fair warning [or] notice of
hearing, while [Plaintiff] was incarcerated at SCI-Benner Township.” (Doc.
1). Plaintiff states that “this increase led to [his] ‘over detention’ false
imprisonment from 3-2019 to 10-7-2019,” when he was “abruptly released
after serving an additional eighth (8) months.” Id. Thus, Plaintiff files the
instant action seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Id.

III.

Discussion
The doctrine of preclusion limits a party’s ability to raise claims that

either were or could have been litigated in a prior action. See Reaves v.
Pennsylvania Board of Prob. & Parole, 580 Fed.Appx. 49, 52 (3d Cir. 2014)
(unpublished). Claim preclusion, formerly referred to as res judicata, bars a
claim litigated between the same parties or their privies in earlier litigation
-2-

Case 3:22-cv-01992-MEM-DB Document 9 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 6

where the claim arises from the same set of facts as a claim adjudicated on
the merits in the earlier litigation. Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d
247, 276 (3d Cir. 2014). Res judicata bars not only claims that were brought
in the previous action, but also claims that could have been brought. Id. at
277 (citations omitted). “A claim extinguished by res judicata includes all
rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or
any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which
the action arose.” Id. (citations omitted).
“Claim preclusion requires: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior
suit involving; (2) the same parties or their [privies]; and (3) a subsequent
suit based on the same cause of action.” Id. at 276 (citations omitted). When
analyzing whether the elements have been met, the court does not apply this
conceptual test mechanically, but focuses on the central purpose of the
doctrine, to require a plaintiff to present all claims arising out of the same
occurrence in a single suit. Id. at 277. This avoids piecemeal litigation and
conserves judicial resources. Id. (citations omitted).
The court takes “a broad view of what constitutes the same cause of
action and res judicata generally is thought to turn on the essential similarity
of the underlying events giving rise to the various legal claims.” Id. (citations
omitted). When analyzing essential similarity, several factors are considered:
-3-

Case 3:22-cv-01992-MEM-DB Document 9 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 6

(1) whether the acts complained of and the demand for relief are the same;
(2) whether the theory of recovery is the same; (3) whether the witnesses
and documents necessary at trial are the same; and (4) whether the material
facts alleged are the same. See id. (citations omitted). It is not dispositive
that a plaintiff asserts a different theory of recovery or seeks different relief
in the two actions. Id. (citations omitted); see also Elkadrawy v. Vanguard
Grp., 584 F.3d 169, 173 (3d Cir. 2009) (“This analysis does not depend on
the specific legal theory invoked, but rather [on] the essential similarity of the
underlying events giving rise to the various legal claims.) (internal quotation
marks omitted).”
Previously, this Court, after conducting an initial screening, dismissed
an identical action, Herrera v. PA Board of Probation and Parole, et al., Civil
No. 3:22-CV-1350, 2022 WL 17640205 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2022).1 The legal
claims and supporting allegations that Plaintiff brings in the instant action are
the same claims and allegations previously dismissed by this Court. Id. Also,
the requirement that the same parties or their privies be involved is met. In
Finding that Plaintiff could not proceed with his claim for money
damages without first challenging the underlying conviction and achieving a
favorable termination, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s action as barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Id. On reconsideration, the Court,
found no error in barring Plaintiff’s action under Heck and held, alternatively,
that even if Plaintiff’s action were treated as a civil rights action for damages,
it was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Id.
1

-4-

Case 3:22-cv-01992-MEM-DB Document 9 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 6

his previous action, the named Defendants were Agents of the Pennsylvania
Department of Probation and Parole; Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections; Curt Parkins, Public Defender; Doug Vanston, Public Defender;
Kurt Lyons, court appointed counsel; Shane Scanlon, former District
Attorney and “other yet to be named Defendants.” Id. In the instant action,
Plaintiff again names members of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Although
employees of SCI-Benner Township were not named in Plaintiff’s previous
action, they are in privity with the rest of the named Defendants. “Privity ‘is
merely a word used to say that the relationship between one who is a party
on the record, and another is close enough to include that other within the
res judicata.” Shah v. United States, 540 Fed.Appx. 91, 93 (3d Cir. 2013)
(unpublished) (quoting Marran v. Marran, 376 F.3d 143, 151 (3d Cir. 2004)
and Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. U.S. Steel Corp., 921 F.2d
489, 493 (3d Cir. 1990). Because “there is privity between officers of the
same government,” a judgment in one suit between a party and a
representative of the United States precludes relitigation of the same issue
between that party and a different government officer in a later suit.”
Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 402–03, 60 S.Ct. 907,
84 L.Ed. 1263 (1940); see also Nelson v. Brown, 2014 WL 1096189 at *7
-5-

Case 3:22-cv-01992-MEM-DB Document 9 Filed 01/18/23 Page 6 of 6

(S.D. Cal. 2014) (warden named in habeas petition and correctional officers
named in civil rights action in privity).
Finally, in both cases, Plaintiff seeks damages for false imprisonment.
The legal claims and supporting allegations that Plaintiff brings in the instant
action are the same claims and allegations previously dismissed by this
Court. Thus, the conditions for claim preclusion are satisfied and, hence,
Plaintiff’s claims are barred. This Court may dismiss, sua sponte, claims
barred by claim preclusion. See King v. East Lampeter Twp., 69 Fed.Appx.
94 (3d Cir. 2003) (appellate court affirmed district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of complaint on grounds of res judicata).

IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint as barred by reason of
res judicata and claim preclusion.
A separate Order shall issue.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
DATE: January 18, 2023

MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge

22-1992-01

-6-