Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

EDWARD L. THOMPSON, SR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:09cv385/MCR/EMT

SUSAN M. NOVOTNY,

ROGER VINSON, and

M. CASEY RODGERS,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Edward L. Thompson, Sr., proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a civil

rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Doc. 1). He also filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (Doc. 2), but subsequently paid the filing fee. Due to Thompson’s pro se status, this matter

was referred to the undersigned for all preliminary orders and the filing of a Report and

Recommendation. See N. D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(E); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)(C); and Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b). For the reasons stated below, the court recommends that this action be dismissed.

Thompson contends United States Magistrate Judge Susan M. Novotny, Senior United States

District Judge Roger Vinson, and United States District Judge M. Casey Rodgers violated his Fifth

Amendment due process rights by denying relief in several cases he has filed in this court,

specifically, Case No. 91-30110/WEA, Case No. 93-30309/RV/SMN, and 3:04cv154/MCR/MD,

respectively (Doc. 1 at 3–4). Thompson asserts Magistrate Judge Novotny “knowingly, ‘with

malice’” failed to address Ground Five of his habeas petition in Case No. 91-30110/WEA and,

therefore, is guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice, high crimes, and “crimes against morality” (id.

at 3). He asserts Judge Vinson “knowingly and with malice of forethought [sic]” overlooked a legal

and factual issue in Case No. 93-30309/RV/SMN and thereby “further upheld a miscarriage of
Page 2 of 4

justice” (id.). As to Judge Rodgers, Thompson asserts that she made a de novo determination “with

malice” as to his claim in Case No. 3:04cv154/MCR/MD, and is therefore guilty of perjury and

“crimes against morality and everything this court stands for” (id.). As relief, Thompson states he

should be allowed to “plead anew to the State charges and proceed to trial—like I have attempted

to do for the previous 18 years” (id. at 4).

Thompson’s litigation history in this court was summarized by Magistrate Judge Davis in

the Report and Recommendation entered in Case No. 3:04cv154/MCR/MD, which was adopted and

incorporated by reference in Judge Rodgers’ order dismissing that case: 

In case PCA 91-30110/WEA, the late Judge Winston Arnow adopted the

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan M. Novotny that plaintiff’s habeas

petition challenging his 1989 conviction of battery on a law enforcement officer be

denied. Judgment was thereafter entered on January 20, 1993. Plaintiff filed an

appeal, but both this court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied a

certificate of probable cause, and the appeal was dismissed. In the instant case,

plaintiff seeks monetary damages and an injunction effectively reversing the

judgment denying his habeas petition in case number 91-30110/WEA (see doc. 1,

p.4).FN1

FN1. The court notes that plaintiff previously filed a civil

rights action that is similar, if not identical to the instant action (see

Thompson v. United States of America, Case Number 93-

30309/RV/SMN). On October 14, 1993 Judge Roger Vinson entered

an order adopting the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan M.

Novotny and dismissed the action as frivolous (id., docs. 5, 6). the

dismissal was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit on November 21,

1994. On July 9, 2001, plaintiff filed a petition in the same case in

which he sought reconsideration fo the judgment in case number 91-

30110/WEA. On August 21, 2001, Judge Roger Vinson entered an

order adopting the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan M.

Novotny and denied relief (id., docs. 31, 33, 34).

Report and Recommendation, Thompson v. U.S. District Court, Case No. 3:04cv154/MCR/MD

(N.D. Fla. May 3, 2004). In Case No. 3:04cv154/MCR/MD, Thompson filed a civil rights complaint

claiming that this court violated his due process rights by entering the Report and Recommendation

in his habeas case, Case No. 91-30110/WEA, which constituted fraud, perjury, and obstruction of

justice. Complaint, Thompson v. U.S. District Court, Case No. 3:04cv154/MCR/MD (N.D. Fla.

Apr. 26, 2004). Thompson sought monetary damages and an injunction effectively reversing the

Case No.: 3:09cv385/MCR/EMT
Page 3 of 4

judgment denying his habeas petition in that case. See id. Magistrate Judge Davis recommended

that the complaint be dismissed as frivolous on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claim for damages was

barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and to the extent Plaintiff sought reconsideration of

the judgment in Case No. PCA-31-30110/WEA, he offered no basis for the court’s authority to do

so. Id. Judge Rodgers adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the case. Order,

Thompson v. U.S. District Court, Case No. 3:04cv154/MCR/MD (N.D. Fla. May 11, 2004).

The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars the instant civil rights action. A claim

is barred by the doctrine of res judicata if all four of the following elements are present: “(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, 1238–39 (11th Cir.

1999). All four requirements are met here. Thompson’s civil rights complaint is nothing more than

an attempt to relitigate the claims raised and rejected in Thompson v. U.S. District Court, Case No.

3:04cv154/MCR/MD (N.D. Fla. May 11, 2004). See e.g., O’Berry v. State Attorneys Office, 241

Fed. Appx. 654, 660 (11th Cir. 2007) (dismissal of prior civil rights complaint on limitations

grounds was res judicata with respect to second civil rights complaint that arose from same nucleus

of operative facts, even though second complaint named different defendants);1 Knight v. United

States, No. 06-CV-6581, 2007 WL 2667455, at *3 (E.D.N.Y Sept. 6, 2007) (dismissal of prior civil

action against United States seeking $41 million in property as frivolous was res judicata with

respect to second civil action against United States seeking return of $41 million worth of property

where claim was based on same transaction as prior civil action). As this court’s dismissal of

Thompson’s prior civil rights complaint in Case No. 3:04cv154/MCR/MD precludes litigation of

the instant complaint, the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That the complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by res judicata.

2. That all pending motions be DENIED as moot. 

3. That this action be DISMISSED and the clerk be directed to close the file

1

The undersigned cites O’Berry only as persuasive authority and recognizes that the opinion is not considered

binding precedent. See 11th Cir. R. 36-2. 

Case No.: 3:09cv385/MCR/EMT
Page 4 of 4

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of October 2009.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

ten (10) days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the

electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A copy of any

objections shall be served upon any other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of

appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d

698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No.: 3:09cv385/MCR/EMT