Pauline Moody v. City of Delray Beach ( 2013 )

Case: 11-15808 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15808
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cv-80949-DMM
PAULINE MOODY,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
DELRAY BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT,
STATE OF FLORIDA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 11, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-15808 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Pauline Moody, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and its dismissal of her civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In her complaint, Moody alleged that the
defendants violated her civil rights when they arrested her for battery in 2007.
The court below denied her motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed
her complaint because it found the complaint identical to a complaint she had
previously filed in 2003 that had been dismissed with prejudice. Moody asserts on
appeal that the district court erred when it concluded that her complaint was
frivolous because her new complaint differs from her earlier complaint in the prior
case. Because we agree with Moody that her new complaint differs from the
earlier complaint, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further
proceedings.
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). A district court’s dismissal of a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the issues raised are frivolous is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.
2001). A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact. Id.
at 1349.
2
Case: 11-15808 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 Page: 3 of 4
Under the doctrine of res judicata, a claim is barred by prior litigation if:
“(1) there is a final judgment on the merits; (2) the decision was rendered by a
court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those in privity with them, are
identical in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action is involved in both cases.”
Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999). “[I]f a case
arises out of the same nucleus of operative fact, or is based upon the same factual
predicate, as a former action, . . . the two cases are really the same ‘claim’ or
‘cause of action’ for purposes of res judicata.” Id. at 1239 (citation and quotation
marks omitted). However, res judicata bars only those claims that could have
been raised in the prior litigation. Id. at 1238-39; see also Manning v. City of
Auburn, 953 F.2d 1355, 1360 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that res judicata does not
bar those claims that arose after the original pleading was filed in the earlier
proceeding).
Moody’s prior complaint contained allegations that she had been raped and
falsely imprisoned by an officer of the Delray Beach Police Department in 1989.
That complaint was dismissed in 2004. In Moody’s present complaint, however,
she contends that the defendants violated her civil rights in events arising out of
her arrest for battery in 2007. Because her present complaint is not identical to her
prior complaint, but involves a wholly separate factual predicate, the district court
3
Case: 11-15808 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 Page: 4 of 4
erred in so holding and dismissing her complaint and denying in forma pauperis
status for that reason. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and
remand the case for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4