United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
J. QUIST, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff paid the entire civil action
filing fee. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L.
No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to
dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the
complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. The Court must read Plaintiff's pro se
complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations
as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly
incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
(1992). Applying these standards, Plaintiff's action will
be dismissed as frivolous.
Charles Judson Holbrook, a restricted and frequent filer in
this Court, presently is incarcerated at the Alger
Correctional Facility. He sues City of Wyoming Police Officer
Timothy Pols, the City of Wyoming Police Department, and the
City of Wyoming.
alleges that Defendant Pols led a SWAT team in a raid of
Plaintiff's home on July 31, 2009. He asserts that
Defendants intended to shoot him to settle a grudge, but they
“screwed up” because Plaintiff was not at home.
(Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.27.) Plaintiff complains that
Defendants spent three hours rummaging through his home
without finding any evidence, but that Defendants
nevertheless loaded a large truck with Plaintiff's
property and drove it away.
contends that Defendants committed criminal trespass and
violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment. He seeks to
recover his property and to shut down the Wyoming Police
action may be dismissed as frivolous if “it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Brown v.
Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (2000); Lawler v.
Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). Claims
that lack an arguable or rational basis in law include claims
for which the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity and
claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does
not exist; claims that lack an arguable or rational basis in
fact describe fantastic or delusional scenarios.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; Lawler, 898
F.2d at 1199.
complaint is legally frivolous. Plaintiff initially filed the
instant action in the Southern District of Ohio, and the case
was transferred to this Court. Plaintiff's decision to
file in the Southern District of Ohio no doubt was motivated
by his prior lack of success in this Court. In Holbrook
v. Pols et al., No. 2:15-cv-170 (W.D. Mich.), Plaintiff
brought a substantively identical complaint. The Court
dismissed that action on February 9, 2016, because
Plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of
limitations. Id. (Op. & Jud. Feb. 9, 2016).
complaint is merely an attempt to relitigate an action that
was previously decided against him. The doctrine of claim
preclusion, sometimes referred to as res judicata, provides
that if an action results in a judgment on the merits, that
judgment operates as an absolute bar to any subsequent action
on the same cause between the same parties or their privies,
with respect to every matter that was actually litigated in
the first case, as well as every ground of recovery that
might have been presented. Black v. Ryder/P.I.E.
Nationwide, Inc., 15 F.3d 573, 582 (6th Cir. 1994);
see Kremer v. Chemical Const. Corp., 456 U.S. 461,
467 n.6 (1982); see also Bowen v. Gundy, No.
96-2327, 1997 WL 778505, at * 1 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 1997).
Claim preclusion operates to relieve parties of the cost and
vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources,
and by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance
on adjudication. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94
(1980). In order to apply the doctrine of claim preclusion,
the court must find that (1) the previous lawsuit ended in a
final judgment on the merits; (2) the previous lawsuit was
between the same parties or their privies; and (3) the
previous lawsuit involved the same claim or cause of action
as the present case. Allen, 449 U.S. at 94;
accord Federated Dept Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452
U.S. 394, 398 (1981).
Plaintiff raised the identical issues and sued the identical
parties. In addition, the action was dismissed for failure to
state a claim because the issues were barred by the statute
of limitations. That dismissal was a final judgment on the
merits. As a consequence, the instant action is barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. An action that is barred by res
judicata is legally frivolous. See, e.g., Taylor v.
Reynolds, 22 F. App'x 537, 538 (6th Cir. 2001);
Hill v. Elting, 9 F. App'x 321 (6th Cir. 2001).
conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff's action will be
dismissed for failure to ...