The opinion of the court was delivered by: BUA
NICHOLAS J. BUA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Michael Glenville has filed this section 1983 action against the Police Board of the City of Chicago, its members, and the Superintendent of Police. Glenville claims that he was wrongfully discharged from his position as a Chicago police officer. Defendants now move to dismiss Glenville's complaint. For the reasons stated herein, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
On March 28, 1984, Glenville was involved in an incident in which he violated several police department rules. After a formal hearing, the Police Board found that he had threatened and battered several individuals, improperly displayed and fired his weapon, and that he had stolen property. Consequently, Glenville was discharged by the police department. In reviewing Glenville's discharge, the Circuit Court of Cook County found that there was just cause for the termination and that the Board's ruling was not against the weight of the evidence. Glenville then appealed this decision, arguing that his actions were the product of an alcohol problem and, therefore, the termination was inappropriate. The appellate court rejected Glenville's argument, however, and affirmed the decision of the circuit court. See Glenville v. Police Bd., 177 Ill. App. 3d 583, 587, 532 N.E.2d 490, 493, 126 Ill. Dec. 805 (1st Dist. 1988). The Illinois Supreme Court subsequently denied his petition for leave to appeal.
Because Glenville contested his termination in state court, defendants argue that the instant case is barred under the doctrine of res judicata. This court agrees. Res judicata applies if the same parties were involved in a previous suit, based on the same cause of action, in which a court entered a final judgment on the merits. Cannon v. Loyola Univ. of Chicago, 784 F.2d 777, 779 (7th Cir. 1986). In Glenville's state court action, he sought relief against the Police Board and its members -- the very same parties named as defendants in this case. A final judgment was issued by the circuit court, and affirmed by the appellate court. Such a final judgment prevents these parties from relitigating issues that were raised or could have been raised in the prior litigation. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398, 69 L. Ed. 2d 103, 101 S. Ct. 2424 (1981). Claiming once again that the discharge was improper due to his alcoholism, Glenville is now seeking relief in this court based on the same cause of action asserted in state court. There are no issues presented in this case that could not have been raised previously. Furthermore, Glenville's complaint is devoid of any allegations pointing to the existence of a separate and distinct cause of action.
Contrary to Glenville's position, his allegations are not transformed into a new cause of action by virtue of his decision to refile the same case in federal court. Therefore, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...