Court Opinion

ID: 4189757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-07-26 22:01:12.114946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:09.670988
License: Public Domain

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  650 Fed.Appx. 896 (7th Cir. 2016) (nonprecedential disposition affirming the dismissal of an earlier suit).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.