Maher v. Bedford County Sheriff Department et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Order dismissing case. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A. Varlan on 11/20/17. (c/m to Robert W. Maher, Jr. #496778 HCCF:CCA P.O. Box 549 Whiteville, TN 38075) (ADA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
ROBERT W. MAHER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEDFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.:
3:17-CV-231-TAV-SKL
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court is in receipt of a pro se prisoner’s complaint for violation of civil rights
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. 2], a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[Doc. 1], and a number of other motions [Docs. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16]. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1]
will be GRANTED, no process shall issue, and this action will be DISMISSED for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. Accordingly, the Clerk
will be DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions.
I.
Filing Fee
It appears from the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis that Plaintiff lacks
sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 3] will be
GRANTED.
Because Plaintiff is an inmate in the Hardeman County Correctional Facility, he will
be ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00. The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust
account at the institution where he now resides will be DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk,
U.S. District Court, 800 Market Street, Suite 130, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, as an initial
partial payment, whichever is the greater of: (a) twenty percent (20%) of the average
monthly deposits to Plaintiff’s inmate trust account; or (b) twenty percent (20%) of the
average monthly balance in his inmate trust account for the six-month period preceding the
filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1) (A), (B). Thereafter, the custodian of
Plaintiff’s inmate trust account at the institution where he now resides shall submit twenty
percent (20%) of Plaintiff’s preceding monthly income (or income credited to Plaintiff’s
trust account for the preceding month), but only when such monthly income exceeds ten
dollars ($10.00), until the full filing fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) as
authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) has been paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
The Clerk will be DIRECTED to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and the
accompanying order to the Warden of the Hardeman County Correctional Facility, the
Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, and the Attorney General for
the State of Tennessee to ensure that the custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account
complies with that portion of the Prison Litigation Reform Act relating to payment of the
filing fee. The Clerk will also be DIRECTED to forward a copy of this memorandum
opinion and the accompanying order to the Court’s financial deputy.
2
II.
Screening Standard
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), district courts must screen
prisoner complaints and shall, at any time, sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are against a defendant who is immune. See,
e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915(A).
The dismissal standard articulated by the
Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007), “governs dismissals for failure state a claim under [28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A] because the relevant statutory language tracks the
language in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus,
to survive an initial review under the PLRA, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Courts liberally construe pro se pleadings
filed in civil rights cases and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that he
was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Black v.
Barberton Citizens Hosp., 134 F.3d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1998); see also Braley v. City of
Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 223 (6th Cir. 1990) (stating that “Section 1983 does not itself create
any constitutional rights; it creates a right of action for the vindication of constitutional
guarantees found elsewhere”).
3
III.
Complaint
The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint arise out of Plaintiff’s assertion that
Defendants have violated his constitutional rights by preventing Plaintiff from receiving
certain surgeries for his shoulder and/or arm and leg [Docs. 2, 10, 13, 14]. Plaintiff,
however, previously filed a lawsuit arising out of related and/or substantively identical
claims, which this Court dismissed for failure to state a claim.1 See Maher v. Bedford Cty.
Sheriff’s Dep’t, 4:16-CV-21 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 16, 2016). 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). The doctrine consists of two related concepts: claim preclusion and
issue preclusion. Taylor, 22 F. App’x at 538–39; Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 522 U.S.
222, 233 n.5 (1998).
Under claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits bars any and all
claims by the parties or their privies based on the same cause of action, as to
1
Notably, Plaintiff states in his complaint that he requests Rule 60(b) relief [Doc. 2 p. 3].
Rule 60(b), however, only provides relief from a final judgment or order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b),
while a complaint begins a new action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. Thus, it is somewhat unclear whether
Plaintiff intended the complaint in this case to begin a new action, or whether he filed the complaint
to seek to alter or amend the judgment in his previously filed case.
Based on the totality of the records in both cases, however, the Court finds that Plaintiff
did intend to file a new action by filing his complaint. Specifically, unlike Plaintiff’s numerous
motions for post-judgment relief, Plaintiff used a complaint form for his complaint [Doc. 2],
simultaneously filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1] with his complaint, and
filed motions in the previous case that indicate his desire to file a separate lawsuit based on the
same allegations, see Maher v. Bedford Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 4:16-CV-21 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 16,
2016) [Docs. 37, 42]. Accordingly, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff did intend to file a separate
action by filing the complaint in this case.
4
every matter actually litigated as well as every theory of recovery that could
have been presented. Under issue preclusion, once an issue is actually and
necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that
determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of
action involving any party to the prior litigation.
Taylor, 22 F. App’x at 538–39 (internal citation omitted); New Hampshire v. Maine, 532
U.S. 742, 748–49 (2001); see also Doe ex rel. Doe v. Jackson Local School Dist., 422 F.
App’x 497, 500 (6th Cir. 2011) (noting that claim preclusion requires “(1) a final decision
on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a subsequent action between the
same parties or their privies; (3) an issue in the subsequent action which was litigated or
which should have been litigated in the prior action; and (4) an identity of the causes of
actions.”); Vincent v. Warren Cty., Ky., 629 F. App’x 735, 740 (6th Cir. 2015) (noting that,
for issue preclusion to apply, “the issue raised in the second case must have been raised,
actually litigated and decided, and necessary to the court’s judgment in the first case.”).
“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, 22 F. App’x at
539.
The substantive claims Plaintiff seeks to bring in this action are all claims that
Plaintiff brought, attempted to bring, or could have brought in his previous action.
Compare [Docs. 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16] with Maher v. Bedford Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,
4:16-CV-21 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 16, 2016) [Docs. 1, 35, 36, 37]. Accordingly, the doctrine
of res judicata bars these claims, Plaintiff’s complaint lacks an arguable legal basis, and
5
the Court will DISMISS this action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B), 1915(A).
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1] will be
GRANTED;
2.
This action will be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted under § 1983;
3.
The Clerk will be DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions;
4.
Plaintiff will be ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00;
5.
The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account at the institution where he
now resides will be DIRECTED to submit payments to the Clerk as set forth above; and
6.
The Clerk will be DIRECTED to send a copy of this memorandum opinion
and the accompanying order to the Warden of the Hardeman County Correctional Facility,
the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, the Attorney General for
the State of Tennessee, and the Court’s financial deputy.
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in
good faith and would be totally frivolous. See Fed. R. App. P. 24.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?