UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION
TRAMETRICH DEMOND JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:26-cv-122-MW-MJF
CENTURION OF FLORIDA LLC,
Defendant. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This § 1983 action is the second civil action Plaintiff has filed in an attempt to establish that Centurion of Florida LLC violated the Eighth Amendment when it was tardy in providing Plaintiff with a C-PAP machine. See Johnson v. Centurion of Florida LLC, No. 5:24-cv-272- MCR-MJF (N.D. Fla. 2024). Because the doctrine of claim preclusion bars this civil action, the District Court should dismiss this case. BACKGROUND A. Plaintiff’s Allegations Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, asserts a single, official-capacity, Eighth-Amendment claim. Plaintiff alleges that Centurion of Florida LLC—the healthcare service provider
for inmates who reside in Florida prisons—was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical need. Doc. 12 at 15. Plaintiff alleges that in April 2022, a sleep study “confirmed
[Plaintiff] had obstructive sleep apnea.” Id. at 5. A physician prescribed a C-PAP machine for Plaintiff. Id. Approximately one year later, on April 25, 2023, Centurion provided Plaintiff with a C-PAP machine. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s tardiness constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Doc. 12 at 15. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages. Id.
B. Plaintiff’s Allegations in Johnson v. Centurion of Florida, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-174-MCR-MJF (N.D. Fla.) (“Johnson I”)
On August 12, 2024, Plaintiff initiated a civil action against Centurion of Florida LLC in the Northern District of Florida. In that action, Plaintiff asserted the exact same claim he asserts in the instant case. On December 9, 2024, United States District Judge M. Casey Rogers dismissed Plaintiff’s civil action for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Johnson I, ECF No. 18. STANDARD
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. The District Court, therefore, is required to review Plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any claim that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
if the complaint is malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)–(b). A claim is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim when an affirmative defense bars recovery. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); Myrick v. Fulton Cnty.,
Ga., 69 F.4th 1277, 1297 (11th Cir. 2023). This includes the affirmative defense of claim preclusion. Shurick v. Boeing Co., 623 F.3d 1114, 1116 n.2 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Boone v. Kurtz, 617 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir.
1980)); see Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000). Additionally, “a plaintiff’s duplicative complaint is an abuse of the judicial process and is properly dismissed” as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Daker v.
Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021); accord McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[R]epetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed under § 1915 as
frivolous or malicious.”). DISCUSSION
The District Court should dismiss this civil action because it is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Claim preclusion prevents parties from relitigating the same claim
or cause of action. Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209, 215 n.3 (2021); Comm’r v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948). Claim preclusion applies when (1) a court of competent jurisdiction has (2) rendered a final
judgment on the merits in another case involving (3) the same parties and (4) the same cause of action. Rodemaker v. City of Valdosta Bd. of Educ., 110 F.4th 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2024); Mann v. Palmer, 713 F.3d
1306, 1311 (11th Cir. 2013); Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999). 1. Johnson I Was Decided by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction
The district court in Johnson I was a court of competent jurisdiction to enter final judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. In Johnson I, the district court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction based on federal-question jurisdiction because Plaintiff was asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. 2. Johnson I Resulted in a Final Judgment on the Merits
In Johnson I, the court issued a final judgment on the merits adverse to Plaintiff. Johnson I, ECF No. 18. Specifically, Judge Rogers dismissed that civil action for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Id. Accordingly, Judge Rogers’s dismissal constituted a final judgment on the merits. See Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981).
3. Johnson I Involved the Same Parties Plaintiff was the plaintiff in Johnson I. Centurion of Florida LLC also was the defendant in Johnson I. Accordingly, both Johnson I and the
instant civil action involve the same parties. 4. Johnson I Involved the Same Cause of Action In Johnson I, Plaintiff asserted a single, Eighth-Amendment claim
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered in 2022–2023 because of Defendant’s delay in providing him with a C-PAP machine. Second Amended Complaint, Johnson I, ECF
No. 10, at 6–10. In the instant civil action, Plaintiff asserts the exact same Eighth-Amendment claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered in 2022–2023 because of Defendant’s delay in providing him with a C-PAP machine. Doc. 12 at
12–15. * * *
Accordingly, each element of claim preclusion has been satisfied. The district court should, therefore, dismiss the precluded civil action. See Walde v. Keri, 2026 WL 1533635 (11th Cir. June 1, 2026) (affirming a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a case on claim preclusion
grounds where the plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis). CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the District Court:
1. DISMISS this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 2. DIRECT the clerk of the court to enter judgment, terminate
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION
TRAMETRICH DEMOND JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:26-cv-122-MW-MJF
CENTURION OF FLORIDA LLC,
Defendant. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This § 1983 action is the second civil action Plaintiff has filed in an attempt to establish that Centurion of Florida LLC violated the Eighth Amendment when it was tardy in providing Plaintiff with a C-PAP machine. See Johnson v. Centurion of Florida LLC, No. 5:24-cv-272- MCR-MJF (N.D. Fla. 2024). Because the doctrine of claim preclusion bars this civil action, the District Court should dismiss this case. BACKGROUND A. Plaintiff’s Allegations Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, asserts a single, official-capacity, Eighth-Amendment claim. Plaintiff alleges that Centurion of Florida LLC—the healthcare service provider
for inmates who reside in Florida prisons—was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical need. Doc. 12 at 15. Plaintiff alleges that in April 2022, a sleep study “confirmed
[Plaintiff] had obstructive sleep apnea.” Id. at 5. A physician prescribed a C-PAP machine for Plaintiff. Id. Approximately one year later, on April 25, 2023, Centurion provided Plaintiff with a C-PAP machine. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s tardiness constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Doc. 12 at 15. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages. Id.
B. Plaintiff’s Allegations in Johnson v. Centurion of Florida, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-174-MCR-MJF (N.D. Fla.) (“Johnson I”)
On August 12, 2024, Plaintiff initiated a civil action against Centurion of Florida LLC in the Northern District of Florida. In that action, Plaintiff asserted the exact same claim he asserts in the instant case. On December 9, 2024, United States District Judge M. Casey Rogers dismissed Plaintiff’s civil action for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Johnson I, ECF No. 18. STANDARD
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. The District Court, therefore, is required to review Plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any claim that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
if the complaint is malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)–(b). A claim is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim when an affirmative defense bars recovery. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); Myrick v. Fulton Cnty.,
Ga., 69 F.4th 1277, 1297 (11th Cir. 2023). This includes the affirmative defense of claim preclusion. Shurick v. Boeing Co., 623 F.3d 1114, 1116 n.2 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Boone v. Kurtz, 617 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir.
1980)); see Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000). Additionally, “a plaintiff’s duplicative complaint is an abuse of the judicial process and is properly dismissed” as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Daker v.
Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021); accord McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[R]epetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed under § 1915 as
frivolous or malicious.”). DISCUSSION
The District Court should dismiss this civil action because it is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Claim preclusion prevents parties from relitigating the same claim
or cause of action. Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209, 215 n.3 (2021); Comm’r v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948). Claim preclusion applies when (1) a court of competent jurisdiction has (2) rendered a final
judgment on the merits in another case involving (3) the same parties and (4) the same cause of action. Rodemaker v. City of Valdosta Bd. of Educ., 110 F.4th 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2024); Mann v. Palmer, 713 F.3d
1306, 1311 (11th Cir. 2013); Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999). 1. Johnson I Was Decided by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction
The district court in Johnson I was a court of competent jurisdiction to enter final judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. In Johnson I, the district court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction based on federal-question jurisdiction because Plaintiff was asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. 2. Johnson I Resulted in a Final Judgment on the Merits
In Johnson I, the court issued a final judgment on the merits adverse to Plaintiff. Johnson I, ECF No. 18. Specifically, Judge Rogers dismissed that civil action for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Id. Accordingly, Judge Rogers’s dismissal constituted a final judgment on the merits. See Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981).
3. Johnson I Involved the Same Parties Plaintiff was the plaintiff in Johnson I. Centurion of Florida LLC also was the defendant in Johnson I. Accordingly, both Johnson I and the
instant civil action involve the same parties. 4. Johnson I Involved the Same Cause of Action In Johnson I, Plaintiff asserted a single, Eighth-Amendment claim
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered in 2022–2023 because of Defendant’s delay in providing him with a C-PAP machine. Second Amended Complaint, Johnson I, ECF
No. 10, at 6–10. In the instant civil action, Plaintiff asserts the exact same Eighth-Amendment claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered in 2022–2023 because of Defendant’s delay in providing him with a C-PAP machine. Doc. 12 at
12–15. * * *
Accordingly, each element of claim preclusion has been satisfied. The district court should, therefore, dismiss the precluded civil action. See Walde v. Keri, 2026 WL 1533635 (11th Cir. June 1, 2026) (affirming a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a case on claim preclusion
grounds where the plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis). CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the District Court:
1. DISMISS this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 2. DIRECT the clerk of the court to enter judgment, terminate
all pending motions, and close this case file. At Panama City, Florida, this 21st day of June 2026. /s/ Michael J. Frank Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to the undersigned to address all preliminary matters and to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.