» ‘Ofider Fornf(01/2008)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Qu’
N: f Assigned Jud itt i 4 ] ft
aie Magistrate Judge John W. Darrah Sane ahead judge VAn\ pre _
7
CASE NUMBER 12 C 0021 DATE hy Zz /j2
7 7

CASE Burney Robinson vs. Cook County State’s Attorney, et al.

TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff is granted thirty days in which either to file an in forma pauperis application on the enclosed form or
pay the full $350 filing fee. Plaintiff is also ordered to show good cause in writing why the complaint should
not be dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata and/or the statute of limitations. The clerk is
directed to send Plaintiff an i-f.p. application along with a copy of this order. Failure of Plaintiff to fully
comply with order within thirty days of the date of this order will result in summary dismissal of this case.

Docketing to mail notices.

[For further details see text below.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff, Burney Robinson, has brought this pro se rights action but has not paid the required filing
fee nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is granted thirty days in which either to file an in forma
pauperis application on the enclosed form or pay the full $350 filing fee.

Furthermore, based on a review of Plaintiffs complaint and the exhibits attached to the complaint, see
42 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that the complaint appears to be barred by the doctrine of res judicata and
the statute of limitations.

A review of the court’s docket reflects that Plaintiff already filed multiple suits against multiple
defendants regarding apparently the same proceedings at issue in the case at bar. See Robinson v. Walker,
Case No. 04 C 5146 (N.D. Ill); see also, Robinson y. State of Illinois, Case No. 09 C 1946 (N.D. Ill.)
(dismissed by Minute Order of May 28, 2009, because claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the
doctrine of res judicata, and the statute of limitations); Robinson v. Attorney General for State of Illinois,
Case No. 09 C 6229 (N.D. Ill) (dismissed by Minute Order of November 5, 2009, because claims were
untimely and failed to state a claim); Robinson v. City of Chicago, Case No. 3191 (dismissed by Minute
Order of July 20, 2010, because claims were barred by res judicata and were time-barred).

In Case No. 04 C 5146, Plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to false arrest, false imprisonment,
reckless endangerment, malicious prosecution, obstruction of justice, and exposure to “special danger,” in
violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as state law. By Memorandum Opinion and
Order of May 29, 2007 (Darrah, J.), this Court granted IDOC Director Roger Walker’s motion for summary
judgment; in the same order, the court additionally dismissed the complaint as to the remaining defendants for
want of service. The U.S. Court of Appeals f ‘Beit dismissed Plaintiff's ensuing appeal on
March 3, 2008. AF iste me

Plaintiff may not now bring what appears to be (aN u i pased on the same alleged conduct that took
place in April of 2004. The doctrine of ros Balin ark elitigation of claims that were already decided by a
court of competent jurisdiction, Under res judicata, a final-judgment on the merits of an action precludes the

Page 1 of 2



STATEMENT

parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. See, e.g.,
San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, Cal., 545 U.S. 323, 336 (2005); Cole v. Board of
Trustees of University of Illinois, 497 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir. 2007). Res judicata applies when (1) there has
been a final judgment on the merits in an earlier action, (2) there is an identity of parties or privies in the two
suits, and (3) there is an identity of the causes of action in the two suits. Ross v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High
Sch., Dist. 211, 486 F.3d 279, 283 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may not resuscitate his claims simply by
attempting to raise “new” claims against “new” defendants based on the same conduct raised in his previous
lawsuit(s).

Second, irrespective of whether res judicata applies, Plaintiff's claims appear to be time-barred. The
statute of limitations for Section 1983 actions filed in Illinois is two years. See 735 ILCS § 5/13-202;
Henderson v. Bolanda, 253 F.3d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 2001), citing Ashafa v. City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459,
462 (7th Cir. 1998). Here, it appears that Plaintiff is suing over events that took place in 2004.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is also ordered to show good cause in writing why the complaint
should not be dismissed for failure to state an actionable claim. Failure of Plaintiff to fully comply with this
order will result in summary dismissal of this matter.

Page 2 of 2