Robinson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS U.S. ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AUGUST 5, 2010 No. 10-11389 JOHN LEY Non-Argument Calendar CLERK ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-00323-GKS-DAB CHARLIE ROBINSON, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Walter McNeil, JAMES CROSBY, Former, Secretary Department of Corrections, ORLESTER DICKENS, Secretary’s Representative, MONICA DAVID, Commissioner/Chairman, TENA M. PATE, Commissioner/Vice Chairman, et al., lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (August 5, 2010) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Charlie Robinson appeals pro se the dismissal of his second complaint that employees of the Florida Department of Corrections and the Florida Parole Commission violated his constitutional rights by denying him “gain time” after the revocation of his controlled release. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm. The district court did not err when it dismissed Robinson’s second complaint. Although Robinson did not request damages in his first complaint, his second complaint “‘arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts, or is based upon the same factual predicate, as [his] former action.” Griswold v. Cnty. of Hillsborough, 598 F.3d 1289, 1293 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1239 (11th Cir. 1999)). Robinson’s complaint is barred by res judicata. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Robinson’s complaint. 2