FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 27, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13101 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 07 -011 49 -C V -R W S -1 A R L A N D A A RN A Y S M I T H , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M .L . M E R C E R , D E K A L B C O U N T Y P O L I C E D E P A R T M E N T , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 27, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A r la n d aA rn a y S m ith ap p e a ls th e d is m is s a l o f h is c iv il s u it a g a in s t aD e k a lb C ou nty P ol i ce O ff

i ce r and the D ekalb C ou nty P ol i ce D epartm ent . S m i th argues the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n di s m i s s i ng hi s s ui tunde rthe doc tr i ne of r e s j udi c a t a . F or the re as on s s t at ed bel ow , w e a gree and revers e. I . Ba c k g r o und S m ith , aD e K a lb C o u n ty G e o r g iaja il in m a te , f ile d s u it u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a g a in s t M .L . M e r c e r , aD e k a lb C o u n typ o lic e o f f ic e r , a n d th e D e k a lb C o u n ty P ol i c e D e pa rtm e nt . S m i th c l a i m e d M e r c e r ’ s a c t i ons r e l a t i ng t o the i s s ua nc e of the a rr e s t w a rr a n t, S m ith ’s a rr e s t, a n d th e f a ilu r e to p r o v id e h im w ith atim e lyp r o b ab le c au s e h e a r in g v io la te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts u n d e rth e 4 th , 6 th , 8 th , a n d 1 4 th A m e ndm e nt s . T he c ourtdi s m i s s e d hi s s ui ta s f r i vol ous unde r28 U . S . C . §1915A because barre d b y r es j ud i ca t a ow i ng t o a the di sm i ss al of S m i th’ s pre vi ou s s i m i l ar c o m p la in t. S m i th app ea l ed on the grou nd s thatre s j ud i ca t a does notbar hi s s ui tsi nce th e p r io ra c tio n w a s d is m is s e d w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e . I n g r a n tin g P la in tif f’s m o tio n to ap p e a l in fo rm a p a u

p e r is , the di s tr i c tc ourta c know l e dge d tha ti t s pr e vi ous d i sm i ssal o n res j u d i cat a g ro u n d s w as i n erro r. T h e co u rtex p ressed i t s w i l l i n g n ess t o revi si ti t s pri or deci si on , bu tno t ed thatP l ai nt i ff’ s f i l i ng of a not i ce of appeal de pr i ve d i tof

j ur i s di c t i on t o do s o.3 II . S tan d ard of R evi ew T hi s c ourtr e vi e w s di s m i s s a l of ac om pl a i nta s f

r i vol ous pur s ua ntt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . B ila l v . D r iv e r , 2 5 1 F .3 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e ap p lic a tio n o f r e s ju d ic a tais aq u e s tio n o f la w r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . N orfol k S ou thern C orp. v. C hevron , U . S . A . , Inc. , 37 1 F . 3d 12 85 , 12 88 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). I I I . D i s c u s s i on P ur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1915A , f e de r a l c ourt s c onduc ta n i ni t i a l s c r e e ni ng of c o m p la in ts f

ile d b y p r is o n e r s to d e te rm in e w h e th e rth e c la im is , in te ra lia ,

“ f r i vol ous orm a l i c i ous . ” T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d the i ns t a ntc a s e a s f r i vol ous be c aus e i tw a s ba rr e d by r e s j udi c a t a . P l a i nt i f f ha d f i l e d apr e vi ous s ui ton the sam e or s i m i l ari ss ues, and thatca se had b ee n d i sm i ss ed. T he earl i erca se , how e ve r , w a s di s m i s s e d w i thoutpr e j udi c e on the ba s i s of

Y ounge rabs t e nt i on du ri ng the pend encyof cr i m i nal proceedi ng s a gai nstP l ai nt i ff . T he doc tr i ne of

r e s j udi c a t aba r s as ubs e que nta c t i on i f the f ol l ow i ng f

our e l e m e nt s a r e pr e s e nt : ( 1) the pr i orde c i s i on w a s r e nde r e d by ac ourtof c om pe t e nt j uri sdi ct i on ; (2) there w as a f i nal j ud gm enton the m er i t s; (3) the part i es w er e i dent i ca l i n b oth sui t s; and (4) the pri or and p re se ntcauses of ac t i on ar e the sa m e. D avi l a v. D el t a A i r L i nes, Inc. , 32 6 F . 3d 11 83 , 11 87 (11th C i r. 20 03 ).4

A di s m i s s a l w i thoutpr e j udi c e doe s notc ons t i tut e a“ f i na l j udgm e nton the m e r i t s ” a nd thus ha s no r e s j udi c a t ae f f e c t . H ughe s v. L ott , 350 F . 3d 1157, 1161 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A di s m i s s a l pur s ua ntt o the Y ounge rdoc tr i ne i s w i thout pr e j udi c e , a nd doe s notpr e c l ude l a t e rr e - f i l i ng of the c om pl a i nt . S e e M a y m oM elen d ez v . A lv ar ez -R am irez , 3 6 4 F .3 d 2 7 , 3 2 n .4 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A s P lain ti ff’s cl ai m s w er e di sm i ss ed w i tho utprej ud i ce pu rs uantt o Y ou ng er , they are no tbarr ed by re s j ud i ca t a, and the di sm i ss al on thatbasi s w as i m prop er . I V . C on c l u s i on F o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , th e d is m is s a l o f S m ith ’s c o m p la in t is VA C A TED , an d th e act i o n i s R EM A N D ED t o the di stri ctcourtfor f urther pr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on.