Case Name: Thomas John CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-26
Citations: 693 F. App'x 461
Docket Number: No. 17-1801
Parties: Thomas John CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge, Ann Claire Williams, Circuit Judge
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 461–461

Head Matter:
Thomas John CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1801
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Decided July 26, 2017
Thomas John Carter, Pro Se
Craig R. Thorstenson, Attorney, Ford & Harrison LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees
Before Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge, Ann Claire Williams, Circuit Judge
This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Opinion:
Order
Thomas Carter contends that defendants violated legal requirements when security guards at a building where he was scheduled for an employment interview deemed his identification unsatisfactory and did not let him enter.
This is Carter's third suit about the events of that day. See Carter v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 650 Fed.Appx. 896 (7th Cir. 2016) (nonprecedential disposition affirming the dismissal of an earlier suit). The district court dismissed Carter's latest complaint as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata). Carter does not take issue with the district court's evaluation or application of that doctrine's elements. Instead he contends that because he paid a new filing fee and served the defendants with process in this new case he is entitled to a fresh decision on the merits. That contention misunderstands the law of preclusion, which limits to one the number of suits presenting the same claim. That Carter has filed a new suit under a new docket number is what brings the doctrine of preclusion into play; it is not an exception to that doctrine.
The district court's order does not need elaboration, and its judgment is affirmed. Carter must understand that any further attempt to litigate claims arising from the events of April 24, 2014, will lead to financial and other penalties.