Tadeusz Woinski v. Richard R. Cuevas

* The defendants were not served with process in district court and are not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have
concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the
appellant’s brief and the record. See FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 3, 2010 *
Decided August 4, 2010
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
No. 10‐1121
TADEUSZ WOINSKI,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
RICHARD R. CUEVAS, et al.,
Defendants‐Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 09 C 7468
Suzanne B. Conlon,
Judge.
O R D E R
Tadeusz Woinski has filed three identical complaints against Cook County employee
Richard Cuevas and others, claiming that Cuevas issued him fake building‐code citations,
had him falsely arrested multiple times, and trashed his property after Woinski refused to
accede to his demands for bribes. In the first suit, Woinski won a $10,000 default judgment
against Cuevas. Woinski v. Cuevas, No. 96 CV 4952 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 1998) (unpublished
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 10‐1121 Page 2
order). The second suit was promptly dismissed on res judicata grounds. Woinski v. Cuevas,
No. 99 CV 6365 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 1999) (unpublished order). And this one, likewise, was
dismissed as barred by the previous two filings. Woinski appeals.
After a litigant brings a federal action that proceeds to a final judgment, the litigant
cannot bring another case about the same events against the same people, even if there were
errors in the original suit. Taylor v. Sturgell, 128 S. Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008); United States ex rel.
Lusby v. Rolls‐Royce Corp., 570 F.3d 849, 851 (7th Cir. 2009); In re Ingersoll, Inc., 562 F.3d 856,
861 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, Woinski’s first lawsuit concerning Cuevas’s alleged extortion and
retaliation proceeded to a final judgment, and that judgment bars this suit and any future
claims stemming from the extortion and retaliation, no matter how inadequate the original
judgment appears to Woinski. We warn Woinski that any future litigation based on these
already‐litigated events may result in sanctions against him. See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v.
Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --