London v. River Rouge Police Department

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RANDALL TREMAYNE LONDON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-11413 v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

RIVER ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff Randall Tremayne London filed this action against Defendants River Rouge Police Department, Wayne County, the Law Firm of Barton Morris, and the State of Michigan. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) London also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has reviewed the Complaint and application. The application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, the Court will summarily dismiss the Complaint on the basis that all of the claims London brings are barred by res judicata. London previously brought claims arising out of the same incident. (See E.D. Mich. Case No. 24- 10754.) Those claims were dismissed on the merits. Moreover, any claims London did not bring in the previous action that he seeks to assert in this action could have, and should have, been brought in the prior action. Therefore, for the reasons explained below, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The Court is required to screen all complaints filed by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis and dismiss those that (i) are frivolous or malicious, (ii) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and/or (iii) seek monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While the Court is obligated to liberally construe documents filed by pro se plaintiffs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a complaint must still plead sufficient specific factual allegations, and not just legal conclusions, in support of each claim.

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–679 (2009); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–471 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard of Iqbal applies to a Court's review of a complaint under § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a

claim). The Court will therefore dismiss a complaint that does not state a “plausible claim for relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. In this action, London brings claims arising out of the search of his home in March 2021 and his arrest and incarceration following that search. London first filed

a Complaint arising out of the same incident in March of 2024 (the “First Action”). (See 24-10754, Compl., ECF No. 1.) In the First Action, London named as Defendants River Rouge Police Department, Barton Morris Law Firm, and Wayne

County. (See id.) He claimed that after he was arrested, he paid his bond “within the first few hours of being in custody and was not released until [a] tether was aaailable weeks later.” (Id., PageID.5.) He further said he was “never given [his]

diabetes medicine.” (Id.) He asserted claims for “police misconduct, due process violation, malfeasance, ineffective assistance of counsel, malicious prosecution, 4th amendment rights violation, prosecutorial misconduct, [and] judicial misconduct.”

(Id., PageID.1.) Barton Morris and Wayne County filed motions to dismiss. (See 24-10754 Mots., ECF Nos. 15, 16.) London did not respond. On October 23, 2024, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) in

which she recommended the Court grant the motions to dismiss and to sua sponte dismiss London’s claims against River Rouge Police Department. (See R&R, ECF No. 28.) In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge concluded that London’s complaint

failed to state a claim against any of the Defendants. (See id.) London filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the R&R (see Mot., ECF No. 29), which the Court granted (see Order, ECF No. 30). However, London did not file objections to the R&R. Accordingly, On December 20, 2024, the Court adopted the

recommendation in the R&R, granted the motions to dismiss, and dismissed London’s complaint. (See Order, ECF No. 34.) Most, if not all, of London’s claims in this action were previously dismissed

by this Court in December of 2024. (See 24-10754 Order, ECF No. 34.) Thus, to the extent London brings the same claims against the same defendants in the previous action, those claims were decided on the merits and are barred by res

judicata. See Wilkins v. Jakeway, 183 F.3d 528, 532 (6th Cir. 1999). Moreover, any claims London did not assert in the First Action that he brings in this action arise out of the same incident, and therefore could have, and should have, been asserted in the

First Action. See id. Accordingly, London’s Complaint is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 16, 2025

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on July 16, 2025, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126