Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boddie v. Jenkins

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

July 30, 2018

HOWARD BODDIE, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLOTTE JENKINS, et al., Defendants.

          Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

          ORDER

          JAMES L. GRAHAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 9) and his request to appeal in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 10.) The Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant action. (See ECF No. 4.) By this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A) provides in relevant part that:

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization unless:
(A) the district court--before or after the notice of appeal is filed--certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the certification or finding.

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A).

         Although Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status from a financial standpoint, the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. The Court makes such certification because Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Specifically, Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the statute of limitations.

         On June 4, 2018, Magistrate Judge Vascura issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims. (ECF No. 4.) In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that many of Plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, explaining as follows:

Plaintiff filed a nearly identical action in December 2014. See Boddie v. Higginbotham, 2:14-cv-2395 (the “2395 Case”). As in this case, in the 2395 Case, Plaintiff brought medical indifference claims under § 1983 against many of the same Defendants named in this action, including Defendants Ault, Higginbotham, Eddy, and Robinson, alleging that these individuals and others were failing to adequately treat his injuries and pain.
* * *
The Undersigned concludes that the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion operates to bar some of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants. Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, “a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” Montana v. U.S., 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has instructed that res judicata requires proof of the following four elements: “(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 action.” Kane v. Magna Mixer Co., 71 F.3d 555, 560 (6th Cir. 1995). “The purpose of res judicata is to promote the finality of judgments, and thereby increase certainty, discourage multiple litigation, and conserve judicial resources.” Westwood Chemical Co. v. Kulick, 656 F.2d 1224, 1227 (6th Cir. 1981).
In the instant action, Plaintiff appears to reassert the same claims, causes of action, and injuries arising out of the same facts that he alleged in the 2395 case. More specifically, in this case, as in the 2395 Case, Plaintiff alleges that CCI prison employees ignored his complaints of pain and failed to adequately provide medical treatment and cites incidents occurring in 2011. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to bring those claims that were dismissed in the 2395 Case, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss those claims as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

(Id. at 4-5, 7-8.)

         With respect to Plaintiff's claims that were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, the Magistrate Judge found that the statute of limitations governing 42 U.S.C. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.