Arlanda Arnay Smith v. M.L. Mercer ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
February 27, 2008
No. 07-13101 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-01149-CV-RWS-1
ARLANDA ARNAY SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
M.L. MERCER,
DEKALB COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(February 27, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Arlanda Arnay Smith appeals the dismissal of his civil suit against a Dekalb
County Police Officer and the Dekalb County Police Department. Smith argues
the district court erred in dismissing his suit under the doctrine of res judicata. For
the reasons stated below, we agree and reverse.
I. Background
Smith, a DeKalb County Georgia jail inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against M.L. Mercer, a Dekalb County police officer, and the Dekalb County
Police Department. Smith claimed Mercer’s actions relating to the issuance of the
arrest warrant, Smith’s arrest, and the failure to provide him with a timely probable
cause hearing violated his constitutional rights under the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 14th
Amendments. The court dismissed his suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915A
because barred by res judicata owing to a the dismissal of Smith’s previous similar
complaint.
Smith appealed on the grounds that res judicata does not bar his suit since
the prior action was dismissed without prejudice. In granting Plaintiff’s motion to
appeal in forma pauperis, the district court acknowledged that its previous
dismissal on res judicata grounds was in error. The court expressed its willingness
to revisit its prior decision, but noted that Plaintiff’s filing of a notice of appeal
deprived it of jurisdiction to do so.
2
II. Standard of Review
This court reviews dismissal of a complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A for abuse of discretion. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th
Cir. 2001). The application of res judicata is a question of law reviewed de novo.
Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 371 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir.
2004).
III. Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, federal courts conduct an initial screening of
complaints filed by prisoners to determine whether the claim is, inter alia,
“frivolous or malicious.” The district court dismissed the instant case as frivolous
because it was barred by res judicata. Plaintiff had filed a previous suit on the
same or similar issues, and that case had been dismissed. The earlier case,
however, was dismissed without prejudice on the basis of Younger abstention
during the pendency of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff.
The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action if the following four
elements are present: (1) the prior decision was rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the parties were
identical in both suits; and (4) the prior and present causes of action are the same.
Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir. 2003).
3
A dismissal without prejudice does not constitute a “final judgment on the
merits” and thus has no res judicata effect. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1161
(11th Cir. 2003). A dismissal pursuant to the Younger doctrine is without
prejudice, and does not preclude later re-filing of the complaint. See Maymo-
Melendez v. Alvarez-Ramirez, 364 F.3d 27, 32 n.4 (1st Cir. 2004). As Plaintiff’s
claims were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Younger, they are not barred
by res judicata, and the dismissal on that basis was improper.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the dismissal of Smith’s complaint is
VACATED, and the action is REMANDED to the district court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
4