Stinson v. Yates

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION MARK T. STINSON PLAINTIFF V. Case No. 2:24-cv-00017-LPR JOHN P. YATES, Warden, BOP, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff Mark Stinson, a former federal prisoner, paid the filing fee and initiated this case in the Southern District of Florida. After Mr. Stinson filed an Amended Complaint, the Southern District of Florida severed his claims (and certain defendants) and transferred the relevant portions of the case to this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).?_ Mr. Stinson’s Amended Complaint is dismissed on res judicata grounds because he has made the same claims against the same Defendants in five previous cases.° For that reason, this case is dismissed with prejudice as barred by res judicata. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of April 2024.

LEE P. Lect UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' Stinson v. Yates, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-24688 (S.D. FL) (Doc. 1). 2 Am. Compl. (Doc. 16); Order (Doc. 28). 3 See Stinson v. Yates, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-111-DPM (E.D. Ark.) (Docs. 5 & 10); Stinson v. Yates, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-212-JM (E.D. Ark.) (Doc. 12); Stinson v. Yates, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-213-JM (E.D. Ark.) (Doc. 22); Stinson v. Yates, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-91-BSM (E.D. Ark) (Doc. 3); Stinson v. Yates, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-240- BSM (E.D. Ark.) (Doc. 7); see also Elbert v. Carter, 903 F.3d 779, 782 (8th Cir. 2018) (setting out standards for dismissal under res judicata).