Thurman v. Rug Doctor

-1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BENJAMIN THURMAN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:25-cv-01896 SPM
)
RUG DOCTOR, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon self-represented Plaintiff Benjamin Thurman’s
application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. [ECF No. 2]. After
reviewing Plaintiff’s financial information, the Court finds that he is unable to pay the filing fee
and will grant the motion. Additionally, for the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss
Plaintiff’s claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in
forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. To state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more
than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678.
Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679. The
Case: 4:25-cv-01896-SPM Doc. #: 5 Filed: 01/06/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
court must “accept as true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber, 820
F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016).
Discussion
This is the seventh time Plaintiff has brought this employment discrimination case against
his former employer, Rug Doctor. Five of Plaintiff’s prior cases were brought in forma pauperis
and were dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Thurman v. Rug Doctor, No. 4:23-
cv-00659 SPM (E.D. Mo. Sept. 19, 2023) (Thurman I) (dismissing complaint as frivolous and
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Thurman v. Rug Doctor, No. 4:24-
cv-00810 SPM (E.D. Mo. Jun. 13, 2024) (finding Thurman I dismissal has res judicata effect and
dismissing complaint as frivolous); Thurman v. Rug Doctor, No. 4:24-cv-01199 SPM (E.D. Mo.
Oct. 9, 2024) (dismissing complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); Thurman v. Rug
Doctor, No. 4:25-cv-0022 SPM (E.D. Mo. Jan. 16, 2025) (dismissing complaint as frivolous);
and Thurman v. Rug Doctor, No. 4:25-cv-00808 SPM (E.D. Mo. June 4, 2025) (dismissing
complaint as frivolous).1
A § 1915(e)(2) dismissal of a subsequent in forma pauperis complaint on res judicata
grounds is proper if prior complaints were dismissed as frivolous. See Vaughn v. Performance
Labs, LLC, No. 24-2920, 2024 WL 5265348 (8th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024) (citing Waller v. Groose,
38 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 1994)). This is the seventh time Plaintiff has brought this employment
discrimination suit against defendant Rug Doctor alleging the same claims. Five of Plaintiff’s
1Plaintiff’s sixth case was dismissed on September 9, 2025, pursuant to the Eighth Circuit case of Waller
v. Groose, 38 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 1994). See Thurman v. Rug Doctor, No. 4:25-cv-01341 HEA (E.D. Mo.
Sept. 9, 2025).
Case: 4:25-cv-01896-SPM Doc. #: 5 Filed: 01/06/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

-3-
prior cases were dismissed on initial review as frivolous. The prior dismissals of Plaintiff’s five
cases for frivolity under §1915(e)(2)(B) have res judicata effect on this newest in forma pauperis
complaint. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds this seventh complaint is frivolous for purposes of
§1915(e)(2)(B) review. It will be dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in the district court
without prepaying fees and costs is GRANTED. [ECF No. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as
moot. [ECF No. 3]
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Opinion, Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 6 th day of January, 2026.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01896-SPM Doc. #: 5 Filed: 01/06/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>