Thomas Carl Woods v. FRDC Sergeant Unknown Smith et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

) THOMAS CARL WOODS, )

) Plaintiff, )

) v. )

) No. 4:26-cv-00454-JMD FRDC SERGEANT UNKNOWN SMITH et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pro se prisoner Thomas Carl Woods filed a complaint on March 27, 2026, about his conditions of confinement. But his claims are identical to ones this Court has already dismissed with prejudice in a previous case. Woods v. Fulton Reception Diagnostic Cent., No. 4:25-cv-01275-JMD, 2026 WL 540452 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 26, 2026). For example, Woods alleges in his current complaint that prison officials “kept [him] in a cell with handcuffs, shackles, [and a] belly chain for 7 days straight.” ECF 1 at 4 (cleaned up). In his since-dismissed complaint from the previous case, Woods alleged that prison officials “left [him] belly chained and handcuffed and shackled . . . for 7 days straight . . . in a cell.” Complaint from Woods, No. 4:25-cv-01275-JMD at 3 (cleaned up). He requests identical relief of $5.5 million and alleges nearly identical injuries. Compare ECF 1 at 4–5, with Complaint from Woods, No. 4:25-cv-01275-JMD at 4–5. And he acknowledges in the instant complaint that he has filed another lawsuit “dealing with the same facts.” ECF 1 at 8 (citing the 2025 action). Woods has moved to proceed in forma pauperis, so the Court dismisses his action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Woods cannot file a duplicative lawsuit while his appeal of the Court’s previous order of dismissal remains pending. “It [is] not appropriate for [Woods] to file the instant action while the dismissal of the same claim—against the same defendants and involving the very same underlying conduct—remains on appeal.” Troupe v. Morgan, No. 4:24-cv-00310-MTS, 2024 WL 4252816, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 20, 2024). “Filing a new lawsuit realleging the same claims that have previously been raised and dismissed . . . is not an appropriate mechanism to challenge the previous dismissal[].” Stenseth v. Althoff, No. 4:24-cv-04197-CCT, 2025 WL 2613571, at *6 (D. S.D. Sept. 10, 2025). Woods must let the standard appeals process run its course. What’s more, the twin doctrines of res judicata and the rule against duplicative

litigation (or claim splitting) bar this action. These corollary rules “seek[] to promote judicial economy and to protect parties from vexatious and duplicative litigation over the same subject matter.” Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine, Minn., 78 F.4th 1045, 1050 (8th Cir. 2023). “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties . . . from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Elbert v. Carter, 903 F.3d 779, 782 (8th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). In the alternative, the doctrine against claim splitting “permits the dismissal of a duplicative action while the first action remains pending.” Kezhaya, 78 F.4th at 1050. Woods’s previous action remains pending on appeal, and there is also a final judgment in that previous action. Either or both of these twin doctrines apply here. Woods “does not get endless bites at the same apple; he cannot allege the same claims in this action that the court dismissed in prior actions,” especially while his original case remains pending on appeal. Rindahl v. Daugaard, No. Civ. 11-4082, 2011 WL 4549151, at *3 (D.S.D. Sept. 29, 2011). The Court DISMISSES this action. The Court also DENIES as moot (1) Woods’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 2 and (2) his five motions to appoint counsel, ECF 4, ECF 6, ECF 9, ECF 10, and ECF 11.

Dated this 23rd day of June, 2026 ff ) bv AAA \ tae te JOSHUA M. DIVINE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF MISSOURI