*

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

not participating in this appeal. After an examination of 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).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 28, 2007*

Decided July 5, 2007 

Before

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

 Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

 Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 06-1429

JUYRONE MCCLENDON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DUPAGE COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 06 C 0206

George W. Lindberg, 

Judge.

O R D E R

Juyrone McClendon alleges that police officers in DuPage County, Illinois,

twice arrested him without cause, first in May 2003 and again in September 2004. 

At the time of both incidents, McClendon was facing drunk-driving charges in the

Circuit Court of DuPage County. According to McClendon, the first arrest, by police

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 06-1429 Page 2

in Downers Grove, was prompted by a warrant issued on the mistaken belief that

he missed a court appearance. McClendon was held overnight in the county jail and

released the next day after the mistake was discovered. The second arrest, by

police in Bolingbrook, apparently occurred because another, valid arrest warrant for

failure to appear was not cancelled a month earlier after the warrant was executed

and McClendon was released on bond. This time he spent the weekend in the

county jail before the error came to light.

This appeal arises from the second of two suits McClendon has brought under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on these facts. In December 2004 he filed a complaint

naming as defendants the DuPage county jail, the state’s attorney and the public

defender’s office for the county, and the clerk of the circuit court. In that case Judge

Der-Yeghiayan denied McClendon leave to proceed in forma pauperis and then

dismissed the complaint in December 2005 when McClendon did not pay the filing

fee. The court concluded that McClendon was not indigent and that his claims did

“not appear to be meritorious.” McClendon did not appeal this dismissal; instead,

in January 2006 he filed another complaint raising the identical claims and naming

the same purported defendants along with the county probation office. Once again

McClendon sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis using an application that was

substantially the same as the one he filed with Judge Der-Yeghiayan. Judge

Lindberg—unaware of the prior suit and application because McClendon failed to

disclose them—screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), denied leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the action. The court reasoned that the

statute of limitations had run as to any claim arising from the arrest in May 2003,

and that McClendon’s allegations about the September 2004 arrest failed to state a

claim.

McClendon appeals the second dismissal. In his appellate brief he finally has

disclosed the earlier suit; McClendon apparently argues that his present claim

about the May 2003 arrest is not time-barred because that same claim was brought

within the statute of limitations in his first lawsuit. But McClendon

misunderstands the effect of his prior complaint. A litigant whose case was

dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is not precluded from filing a paid complaint that

makes the same allegations. If, however, a litigant files a second complaint

identical to the one already deemed frivolous, again seeking to proceed in forma

pauperis and without showing a change in financial circumstances, the repeated

attempt is precluded. See Hudson v. Hedge, 27 F.3d 274, 276 (7th Cir. 1994)

(“Hudson did not pay the docket fee to commence his second case; instead he sought

once again to proceed in forma pauperis, and that request is barred by any

standard.”); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992); Flowers v.

Columbia Coll. Chi., 397 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 2005); Gladney v. Pendleton Corr.

Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, the district court was right to

deny McClendon permission to proceed in forma pauperis. We need not review
No. 06-1429 Page 3

Judge Lindberg’s analysis of the merits of McClendon’s suit; McClendon’s attempt

to pursue the same complaint without paying the filing fee per Judge DerYeghiayan’s instructions or informing Judge Lindberg about those instructions is

reason enough to affirm the court’s decision. See Campbell v. Clarke, 481 F.3d 967,

969 (7th Cir. 2007); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.