UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

KEVIN S. TURNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:15-CV-005 JD

)

WILLIAM WILSON, PAM BANE, )

and ROBERT HOUGH, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Kevin S. Turner, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint against William Wilson,

Pam Bane, and Robert Hough alleging that they failed to protect him from attack by another

inmate at the Indiana State Prison in 2012. This is not the first time that Turner has raised this

claim. In Turner v. Indiana Department of Corrections, 49D06-1311-CT-40461 (Marion

Superior Court filed November 5, 2013), Turner sued these same three defendants and two

others based on these same events. DE 17 at 23-28. That complaint raised both federal and state

claims. It was dismissed with prejudice on March 19, 2014. DE 17 at 65-66. Turner’s appeal was

dismissed on July 25, 2014, and his petition for rehearing was denied on August 22, 2014. DE 1-

1 at 12. 

“A fundamental precept of common-law adjudication, embodied in the related doctrines

of collateral estoppel and res judicata, is that a right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and

directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. . . cannot be disputed in a subsequent

suit between the same parties or their privies[.]” Ross v. Bd. of Educ. of Tp. H.S. Dist. 211, 486

F.3d 279, 282 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). These companion

doctrines “protect against the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserve
judicial resources, and foster reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of

inconsistent decisions.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008). Because the prior case was

litigated in the Marion Superior Court, Indiana law determines whether the present action is

barred by res judicata. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic, 470

U.S. 373, 380 (1985). Under Indiana law, four requirements must be satisfied for a claim to be

precluded under the doctrine of res judicata: 1) the former judgment must have been rendered by

a court of competent jurisdiction; 2) the former judgment must have been rendered on the merits;

3) the matter now in issue was, or could have been, determined in the prior action; and 4) the

controversy adjudicated in the former action must have been between the parties to the present

suit or their privies. MicroVote General Corp. v. Indiana Election Com’n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 191

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

Here, the first element of that test is met because the Marion Superior Court had

jurisdiction over both State and federal claims. See Gilbert v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 591 F.3d

896, 901 (7th Cir. 2010) (“State courts possess not only the authority but also the duty to enforce

federal law.”). The second element is met because the Marion Superior Court dismissed the case

with prejudice for failure to state a claim and entered a final judgment which was not overturned

on appeal. DE 17 at 65-66 and DE 1-1 at 12. The third element is met because Turner brought

federal claims arising out of the same events he is suing about in this case and any other federal

claims could have been included as well. DE 17 at 1-9 and 23-28. The fourth element is met

because the defendants in this case were also defendants in the State court case. Id.

Turner argues that the State court’s adjudication of his case was an abuse of discretion

that was both substantively and procedurally incorrect. However, under the Rooker2
Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the decisions of state courts in

civil cases. Gilbert v. Ill. Bd. of Educ., 591 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2010). In essence, the

doctrine “prevents a state-court loser from bringing suit in federal court in order effectively to set

aside the state-court judgment,” and it applies “even though the state court judgment might be

erroneous or even unconstitutional.” Id. Thus, this court cannot review the judgment rendered by

the State court in Turner’s case. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the

action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief. Here, it is malicious to sue the same defendants again

after losing in State court. It is legally frivolous to ask this court to review the State court

judgment. Therefore this case will be dismissed as frivolous and malicious. 

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as 

frivolous and malicious. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 15, 2015

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court

3