Opinion
22-3050-JWL
07-20-2023
VINCENT LEE WALKER, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, Vincent Lee Walker, filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is currently confined at the Douglas County Jail in Lawrence, Kansas. This case was dismissed on April 26, 2022, for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff appealed the dismissal and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. (Doc. 12.) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 16) seeking to refile this case.
In his motion, Plaintiff argues that the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners should be the only defendant in this case. (Doc. 16, at 1.) The other defendants were dismissed based on res judicata because Plaintiff had previously raised the same claims against them in prior cases that were dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Doc. 5, at 2-3 (citing Case Nos. 20-3123 and 21-3136). It appears that Plaintiff believes he can salvage his claims by refiling this case without naming those defendants. However, the Board was also a named defendant in this case and the Court also dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the Board. (Doc. 5, at 4.)
This is Plaintiff's second attempt to resurrect this closed case. Plaintiff previously filed a motion seeking to refile his complaint in this case, arguing that the Board should be the only named defendant. (Doc. 13.) On July 11, 2023, the Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff named the Douglas County, Kansas, Board of County Commissioners as a defendant in this case and his claims against this defendant were dismissed along with the claims against the other defendants. (Doc. 15.)
Plaintiff's current motion is denied for the same reasons his previous motion was denied. Plaintiff named the Board as a defendant, the Court considered his claims against the Board, the Court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal. Nothing in Plaintiff's motion warrants reopening this closed case to allow him to refile his claim against the Board. Plaintiff's motion is denied and this case remains closed. Any further motions filed by Plaintiff in this closed case may be summarily denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 16) seeking to refile this case is denied. This case remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.