United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER AND REPORT & RECOMMENDATION APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1) AND COMPLAINT
(ECF NO. 1-1)
FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Eric Chatman's
("Chatman") three applications to proceed in
forma pauperis (2:18-cv-01255, ECF No. 1; 2:18-cv-01256,
ECF No. 1; 2:18-cv-01262, ECF No. 1) and complaints
(2:18-cv-01255, ECF No. 1-1; 2:18-cv-01256, ECF No. 1-1;
2;18-cv-01262, ECF No. 1-1). For the follovrtng reasons,
Chatman's applications to proceed in forma
pauperis are granted. However, the Court recommends that
Chatman's complaints be dismissed with prejudice.
filings present two questions. First, whether he may proceed
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Second, whether his complaints state a claim upon which the
Court may grant relief.
Chatman's Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is Granted
plaintiff may bring a civil action "without prepayment
of fees or security therefor" if the plaintiff submits a
financial affidavit demonstrating that he is "unable to
pay such fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). A prisoner who seeks to bring a civil
action without prepayment of fees must also submit a
"certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or
the institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the
6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
complaint." M § 1915 (a)(2).
is currently incarcerated in Salinas, California.
(2:18-cv-01255; ECF No. 1); (2:18-cv- 01256; ECF No. 1);
(2:18-cv-01262; ECF No. 1). In his application, Chatman
states that he has no income or assets. (See
2:18-cv-01256; ECF No. 1 at 1-2). His financial certificate
detailing the past six months states his prison account
contains no ftinds. (See 2:18-cv-01266; ECF No. 1 at
4). Given these facts, the Court grants Chatman's
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Chatman's Complaint Should be Dismissed with
Court must review a plaintiffs complaint to determine whether
it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which the Court may grant relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandate
that a claim must contain a "short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief
and "a demand for relief sought." Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a). When a complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal of
that claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
complaints fail to state a claim on which the Court may grant
relief His claims against Caesar's Palace, Mirage and
Circus Circus are barred by res judicata. His remaining
claims are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Res judicata bars Chatman from re-litigating this
previously decided issue against Caesar's Palace, Mirage,
and Circus Circus (2:18-cv-01256, ECF No. 1-1; 2:18-cv-01262,
ECF No. 1-1).
court issues a final judgment on a claim, the doctrine of res
judicata (claim preclusion) bars litigants from bringing
further claims on the same cause of action. Tahoe-Sierra
Pres. Counsel Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency,
322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003). Claim preclusion applies
when, in an earlier case, there has been an identity of the
claims, a final judgment on the merits, and privity between
the parties. Id.
5, 2018, Chatman filed a claim against Caesars Palace, Circus
Circus Hotel & Casino and the Mirage Hotel & Casino,
alleging he was kidnapped, robbed, and "attempted [sic]
stabbed" at some point between 2004 and 2006,
approximately one mile from these properties.
(2:18-cv-GG224-RFB-VCF, ECF No. 1-1 at 1).On May 23, 2018,
Judge Richard F. Boulware, II accepted and adopted the
undersigned Magistrate Judges's Report and
Recommendation, ordering Chatman's action be dismissed
with prejudice. Chatman v. Ceasars Palace Co., No.
2:18-cv-00224-RFB-VCF, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87098, at *2 (D.
Nev. May 23, 2018) (emphasis omitted).
present complaints, Chatman alleges a nearly identical
complaint against all three companies, alleging he was robbed
on the properties. (2;18-cv-01256, ECF No. 1-1 at 3;
2:18-cv-01262, ECF No. 1-1 at 3). Given that Chatman's
complaints rest on the same facts and events that gave rise
to his complaint earlier this year, Judge Boulware's
final judgement on the merits in case 2:18-cv-00224-RFB-VCF
bars Chatman from re-litigating the issue in this case. No
amendment would resolve this issue and thus ...