Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01121/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01121-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

*

The defendants were not served with process in district court and are not

participating in this appeal.  After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have

concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the

appellant’s brief and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 3, 2010*

     Decided August 4, 2010      

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐1121

TADEUSZ WOINSKI,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

RICHARD R. CUEVAS, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 09 C 7468

Suzanne B. Conlon,

Judge.

O R D E R

Tadeusz Woinski has filed three identical complaints against Cook County employee

Richard Cuevas and others, claiming that Cuevas issued him fake building‐code citations,

had him falsely arrested multiple times, and trashed his property after Woinski refused to

accede to his demands for bribes.  In the first suit, Woinski won a $10,000 default judgment

against Cuevas.  Woinski v. Cuevas, No. 96 CV 4952 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 1998) (unpublished

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 10-1121 Document: 21 Filed: 08/04/2010 Pages: 2
No. 10‐1121 Page 2

order).  The second suit was promptly dismissed on res judicata grounds.  Woinski v. Cuevas,

No. 99 CV 6365 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 1999) (unpublished order).  And this one, likewise, was

dismissed as barred by the previous two filings.  Woinski appeals.

After a litigant brings a federal action that proceeds to a final judgment, the litigant

cannot bring another case about the same events against the same people, even if there were

errors in the original suit.  Taylor v. Sturgell, 128 S. Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008); United States ex rel.

Lusby v. Rolls‐Royce Corp., 570 F.3d 849, 851 (7th Cir. 2009); In re Ingersoll, Inc., 562 F.3d 856,

861 (7th Cir. 2009).  Here, Woinski’s first lawsuit concerning Cuevas’s alleged extortion and

retaliation proceeded to a final judgment, and that judgment bars this suit and any future

claims stemming from the extortion and retaliation, no matter how inadequate the original

judgment appears to Woinski.  We warn Woinski that any future litigation based on these

already‐litigated events may result in sanctions against him.  See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v.

Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 10-1121 Document: 21 Filed: 08/04/2010 Pages: 2