Turner v. Sochor

Background

Wilbert Kitson Andrew Turner filed this action against Thomas Socher, Shirley Gattison, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Stamford Police Department, Zach Lowe, and the Stamford Advocate. Turner alleged that immigration authorities violated his due-process rights by unlawfully or fraudulently deporting him. He also alleged that the Stamford Police Department worked with immigration authorities to accomplish his deportation and that Lowe and the Stamford Advocate published an article portraying him as a member of a Jamaican gang. He sought money damages.

Turner stated that the events occurred over several decades, beginning in 1990. He alleged that his initial deportation occurred in the 1990s and that he later faced criminal prosecutions for illegal reentry. The opinion states that Turner was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center when he filed this action and was representing himself.

Screening standard

Because Turner was a prisoner proceeding without paying the filing fee in advance, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. Those provisions require dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fall within the statute’s dismissal grounds. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally, but still must contain enough factual information to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Claim preclusion

The court applied claim preclusion, also called res judicata. Claim preclusion generally prevents a person from bringing a later case against the same opposing party when an earlier case ended with a decision on the merits and involved claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in the earlier case. A dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a final decision on the merits for this purpose.

The court concluded that the requirements were met. In Turner I, Turner had sued the same defendants regarding his removal from the United States. The earlier case included allegations that the Stamford Police Department worked with immigration authorities, that Socher and Gattison and the former immigration agency violated Turner’s rights in connection with his first deportation, and that Lowe and the Stamford Advocate published an article about him. The court stated that the facts underlying the present claims existed before Turner I was filed, so claims omitted from the earlier case were also barred if they arose from the same events.

Disposition

The court concluded that claim preclusion barred the new action and dismissed Turner’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. It declined to give Turner an opportunity to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.