Gaddy et al v. Land et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in following order. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on 3/20/18. (c/m to Thomas and Carol Gaddy)(ABF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
THOMAS GADDY and CAROL GADDY,
)
)
Petitioners,
)
v.
)
)
GEORGE DWAIN LAND, CLAYTON SMITH, )
CHAD REESE, STEPHEN T. GREER, RUSSELL )
ANNE SWAFFORD, CARA RAINS SAPP, BILL )
DENNIS, EARL GEARY, JR., GEORGE
)
WAGNER, J. CURTIS SMITH, JEFFREY F.
)
STEWART, and THOMAS W. GRAHAM,
)
)
Respondent.
)
No.
1:17-CV-223-TWP-SKL
MEMORANDUM
On August 14, 2017, Thomas Gaddy and Carol Gaddy (“Petitioners”) filed a joint petition
for writ of habeas corpus along with a $5.00 filing fee [Doc. 1]. This matter is now before the
Court on Petitioners’ pro se response to this Court’s show cause order [Doc. 6].
On December 13, 2017, Petitioners were ordered to show cause as to why this case should
not be dismissed for failure to prosecute based on Petitioners’ failure to refile their complaint on
the court-approved form provided to them by the Clerk’s Office [Doc. 5]. Within the time frame
set by the Court, Petitioners’ filed a response to the show cause order on December 29, 2017 [Doc.
6]. However, Petitioners’ response failed to express any cause for Petitioners’ failure to follow
the Court’s prior order, but rather merely attached a new “Complaint” after a short paragraph of
their previously alleged constitutional violations [Doc. 6].
Within Petitioners’ attached pleading, they allege that the twelve Defendants engaged in a
conspiracy directed at depriving them of rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution
and the Tennessee Constitution [Doc. 6-1]. Petitioners, however, previously filed a lawsuit arising
out of substantively identical claims, which this Court dismissed for failure to state a claim. See,
Gaddy v. Land, et al., 1:17-CV-24 (E.D. Tenn. July 12, 2017). There can be no reasonable dispute
that the attached complaint [Doc. 6-1] filed in the instant lawsuit is duplicative of Petitioners’
complaint filed in Case No. 1:17-CV-24-TRM-CHS. Upon review of Petitioners’ complaint in
the present action, it is clear that the complaint is merely a photocopy of Petitioners’ complaint
filed in Case No. 1:17-CV-24-TRM-CHS. In fact, Petitioners did not even change the style of the
complaint to reflect the new case number, as the newly attached complaint still has the previously
dismissed case number 1:17-CV-24-TRM-CHS.
The doctrine of res judicata prevents “the parties and their privies from relitigating in a
subsequent proceeding a controversy or issue already decided by a prior valid judgment and from
litigating piecemeal the same controversy.” Westwood Chem. Co., Inc. v. Kulick, 656 F.2d 1224,
1229 (6th Cir. 1981). “A completely duplicative complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law
or in fact and, [is] therefore . . . properly dismissed on the basis of res judicata.” Taylor v. Reynolds,
22 F. App’x 537, 539.
Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata bars these claims, and as such, Petitioners’
attached complaint lacks an arguable legal basis to proceed in this action. The Court will
DISMISS this action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915(A). The Clerk will be DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
ENTER.
2
_s/ Thomas W. Phillips_________
Senior United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?