Adama Njie v. Joseph Yurkovich, 17-2126

Background

Plaintiff Adama Njie, a Rastafarian inmate, sued Hill Correctional Center staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA alleging interference with free exercise (grooming policy/dreadlocks), denial of Ital diet, denial of contact visits, forcible haircutting, wrongful disciplinary action, conspiracy, and retaliation.
Njie I (filed Mar. 2014) survived screening on limited claims against three defendants (retaliation, free exercise, equal protection, and RLUIPA injunctive relief); other claims were dismissed. He sought emergency relief after staff threatened/ordered a haircut; defendants cut his hair before the court ruled.
The district judge allowed Njie to amend Njie I to include claims related to the forcible haircut but instructed that the amended complaint must be complete and not piecemeal; Njie’s later multi-defendant amended pleading was struck as improperly joining unrelated claims.
Njie II (filed while Njie I was pending) asserted overlapping and additional incidents (e.g., denial of a contact visit in Oct. 2014, forcible haircut in Feb. 2015, retaliation for filing Njie I). The district court dismissed Njie II at screening as frivolous/malicious, concluding it duplicated Njie I.
The Seventh Circuit vacated the dismissal, holding Njie II was not plainly frivolous or malicious because some claims involved different incidents, different defendants in their personal capacities, or retaliation tied to filing Njie I; dismissal with prejudice harmed Njie’s ability to litigate those additional claims.
The appellate court remanded for further proceedings, denied Njie’s TRO request pending remand, and dismissed his motion for counsel as unnecessary in light of the remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Njie II was properly dismissed as frivolous/malicious at screening because it duplicated Njie I	Njie argued he filed a new suit after the judge instructed him to bring unrelated claims in a separate case; his claims are not duplicative	District court said Njie II asserted identical claims already before the court and thus was malicious/frivolous	Vacated: dismissal was error because not all claims were duplicative and Njie acted in good faith following court instructions
Whether claims tied to different incidents/defendants are barred as duplicative	Njie: Oct. 2014 visit denial, forcible haircut, retaliation for filing Njie I are distinct	Defendants: overlap with Njie I and therefore improper; prior rulings foreclose relief	Held: Some claims are distinct (different incidents/defendants and new retaliation theory) and not plainly lacking merit
Proper remedy when parallel/overlapping prisoner suits exist	Njie: filing a new case was reasonable given court’s guidance	Defendants: dismissal appropriate to prevent duplicative litigation	Held: Courts should prefer stay over dismissal of a second civil suit unless dismissal will not prejudice parties; dismissal here prejudiced Njie
Effect of prior proceedings (prelim. injunction denial and final judgment in Njie I) on Njie II	Njie: still entitled to adjudication of distinct claims; some claims may survive despite prior rulings	Defendants: prior denial/entry of judgment precludes re-litigation	Held: Appellate court remanded; noted some issues may now be subject to claim or issue preclusion, but the sole error was premature dismissal at screening

Key Cases Cited

Reed v. Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960 (7th Cir.) (summarizing principal doctrines of Rastafarianism)
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.) (limits on joining unrelated claims/defendants in a single prisoner suit)
Conner v. Reinhard, 847 F.2d 384 (7th Cir.) (officers sued in personal capacities are not in privity with the government)
Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758 (7th Cir.) (advising stay rather than dismissal for parallel civil suits)
Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Paramount Liquor Co., 203 F.3d 442 (7th Cir.) (discussing handling of parallel litigation)
Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court) (considerations in resolving parallel suits)
Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221 (7th Cir.) (upholding dismissal when suits are truly duplicative)
Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir.) (definition of frivolous and malicious under screening statutes)
Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir.) (same)