Stinson v. Yates

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION MARK T. STINSON PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00240-BSM JOHN P. YATES, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Mark Stinson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 3] is granted; however, his complaint is dismissed on res judicata grounds because Stinson has made the same claims against the same defendants in four previous cases that were adjudicated on the merits. See Stinson v. Yates, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-111-DPM (E.D. Ark.) (Doc. No. 10); Stinson v. Yates, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-212-JM (E.D. Ark.) (Doc. No. 12); Stinson v. Yates, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-213-JM (E.D. Ark.) (Doc. No. 22); Stinson v. Yates, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-91-BSM (E.D. Ark) (Doc. No. 3); see also Elbert v. Carter, 903 F.3d 779, 782 (8th Cir. 2018) (setting out standards for dismissal under res judicata). Accordingly, this case is dismissed with prejudice. An in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE