Fourth, even though Plaintiff has proceeded pro se in his previous actions, there is no evidence that he has been deprived of an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his cases. See Prometheus Health, 394 Fed.Appx. 280, 283; see also United States v. Guy, No. 1:05 CV 2605, 2006 WL 1874709, at *6 n.5 (N.D. Ohio July 3, 2006) (Defendant's “partial pro se status did not prevent [her] from having a ‘full and fair' opportunity to litigate” an issue). Plaintiff has filed numerous pleadings in multiple lawsuits in several federal courts.
Fourth, even though the plaintiff has proceeded pro se in both actions, there is no evidence that he has been deprived of an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his cases. See Prometheus Health, 394 F. App'x 280, 283; see also United States v. Guy, No. 1:05 CV 2605, 2006 WL 1874709, at *6 n.5 (N.D. Ohio July 3, 2006) (defendant's "partial pro se status did not prevent [her] from having a 'full and fair' opportunity to litigate" an issue).
Fourth, even though Plaintiff has proceeded pro se in both actions, there is no evidence that he has been deprived of an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his cases. See Prometheus Health, 394 F. App'x 280, 283; see also United States v. Guy, No. 1:05 CV 2605, 2006 WL 1874709, at *6 n.5 (N.D. Ohio July 3, 2006) (Defendant's "partial pro se status did not prevent [her] from having a 'full and fair' opportunity to litigate" an issue). Consequently, the Court concludes that the elements of issue preclusion are met. Plaintiff is barred from relitigating the Court's prior adjudication of the same Section 1983 claims against the same Defendants.
Fourth, even though Plaintiff has proceeded pro se in both actions, there is no evidence that he has been deprived of an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his cases. See Prometheus Health, 394 F. App'x 280, 283; see also United States v. Guy, No. 1:05 CV 2605, 2006 WL 1874709, at *6 n.5 (N.D. Ohio July 3, 2006) (Defendant's "partial pro se status did not prevent [her] from having a 'full and fair' opportunity to litigate" an issue). Consequently, the Court concludes that the elements of issue preclusion are met. Plaintiff cannot file another lawsuit in the hope of achieving a different result.
Fourth, even though Plaintiff has proceeded pro se in both actions, there is no evidence that he has been deprived of an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his cases. See Prometheus Health, 394 F. App'x 280, 283; see also United States v. Guy, No. 1:05 CV 2605, 2006 WL 1874709, at *6 n.5 (N.D. Ohio July 3, 2006) (Defendant's "partial pro se status did not prevent [her] from having a 'full and fair' opportunity to litigate" an issue). Consequently, the Court concludes that the elements of issue preclusion are met. Plaintiff cannot file another lawsuit in the hope of achieving a different result.
Fourth, even though Plaintiff has proceeded pro se in both actions, there is no evidence that he has been deprived of an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his cases. See Prometheus Health, 394 Fed. App'x 280, 283; see also United States v. Guy, No. 1:05 CV 2605, 2006 WL 1874709, at *6 n.5 (N.D. Ohio July 3, 2006) (Defendant's "partial pro se status did not prevent [her] from having a 'full and fair' opportunity to litigate" an issue). Consequently, the Court concludes that the elements of issue preclusion are met. A second review by this Court of Plaintiff's allegations concerning the 1987 actions of the Turney Center officer and nurse is barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion.