United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
prisoner Vernon Marcus Coleman ("Coleman"),
currently confined at the Federal Correctional Facility in
Jesup, Georgia, filed a pro se Complaint for
Violation of Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and/or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Coleman
asserts that Erik Johansene ("Defendant"),
identified as a Wayne Metro Airport Police Officer, violated
his constitutional rights by seizing $79, 000 from him
without a warrant. Coleman sues Defendant in his individual
and official capacities and seeks monetary damages. The Court
granted Coleman leave to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee for this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("PLRA"),
the Court is required to sua sponte dismiss an
in forma pauper is complaint before service on a
defendant if it determines that the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court is similarly required to
dismiss a complaint seeking redress against government
entities, officers, and employees which it finds to be
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915 A. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
Nonetheless, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires
that a complaint set forth "a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief," as well as "a demand for the relief
sought." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), (3). The purpose of this
rule is to "give the defendant fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citation omitted). While notice pleading does not require
"detailed" factual allegations, it does require
more than the bare assertion of legal principles or
conclusions. Id. Rule 8 "demands more than an
unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me
accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). "A pleading that offers 'labels and
conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'"
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
"Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders 'naked
assertion[s]' devoid of further factual
enhancement.'" Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must show
that: (1) the defendant is a person who acted under the color
of state or federal law, and (2) the defendant's conduct
deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, privilege, or
immunity. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149,
155-57 (1978); Harris v. Circleville, 583 F.3d 356,
364 (6th Cir. 2009).
already filed a civil rights action against the same
defendant for the same alleged constitutional violation. It
was dismissed, in relevant part, pursuant to Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). See Coleman
v. Johansene, No. 2:19-CV-10572 (E.D. Mich. April 18,
2019) (Roberts, J.). Coleman's current claim alleging
that Defendant improperly seized $79, 000 without a warrant
was raised and addressed in that prior case and may not be
re-litigated under the doctrine of res judicata or
claim preclusion. See, e.g., Federated Dep't. Stores
v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981); Mitchell v.
Chapman, 343 F.3d 811, 819 (6th Cir. 2003); see also
Butts v. Wilkinson, 145 F.3d 1330, 1998 WL 152778, *1
(6th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) (upholding summary dismissal of
prisoner civil rights complaint based upon res
judicata doctrine); McWilliams v. State of
Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997)
(repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of
action may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as
frivolous or malicious); Jones v. Warden of Statesville
Corr. Ctr., 918 F.Supp. 1142, 1150 (N.D. 111. 1995)
(dismissal of prisoner action as frivolous given preclusive
effect against similar claims raised in subsequent
the res judicata or claim preclusion doctrine, a
claim is barred by prior litigation if the following elements
are present: (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) identity of the causes
of action. See Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 123
F.3d 877, 880 (6th Cir. 1997). The res judicata rule
"precludes not only relitigating a claim previously
adjudicated; it also precludes litigating a claim or defense
that should have been raised, but was not, in the prior
suit." Mitchell, 343 F.3d at 819. In this case,
all four elements are present. The instant action must
therefore be dismissed pursuant to the res judicata
reasons stated, the Court DISMISSES the
Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A. The Court also
concludes that an appeal from this order cannot be taken in
good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Since this case
is closed, no further pleadings can be filed.