Whether res judicata and collateral estoppel prevent relitigation of claims and issues in a prior suit when a judge's acts in the prior suit led to a judicial result that precludes all resort to judicial remedies to a litigant

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Case presents conflicting interpretations between the Lower Courts and the Supreme Court regarding the application of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and failure to state a claim under “28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” Res judicata & collateral estoppel. The Seventh Circuit held that res judicata applies “even if the decision in the first [suit] was transparently erroneous” _ because if Gleash [the losing party] “wanted to contest the validity of the district judge's decision (...) he had to appeal [,]” but he did not. Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758, 760 (7th Cir. 2002). Likewise, the Supreme Court held collateral estoppel “prevent([s] relitigation of wrong decisions just as much as right ones” because Hargis [the losing party] had a right to seek review, but Hargis did not. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138, 157 (2015). Res judicata & collateral estoppel do not apply when a losing party had no : chance to be heard for the validity of a district judge's decision. Failure to state claim. The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must ‘plead “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" to defeat a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).! Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim meets the plausibility test “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). Alleged misconduct. Petitioner filed lawsuits (Directly related Case Nos. 20-2148 & 20-2149, “2020 Cases”) based on: (1) two men’s sexual harassment; (2) her reporting of the harassment to the University of Illinois Office of Diversity, Equity, and Access (ODEA); (3) both ODEA’s response and the two men’s response to her report. Majority of Petitioner’s claims in 2020 Cases were filed in her prior suits presided by District Judge Colin S. Bruce, where his actions led to a judicial result that precludes all resort to judicial remedies that would otherwise ; 1 Rule 12(b)(6) 28 U.S.C and § 1915(e)(2)(B) (ii) are identical —"fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” II be available to Petitioner. These claims were dismissed under “28 U.S.C. § 1915(e){2)(B) G)frivolous” by applying res judicata & collateral estoppel. Petitioner’s new claims were filed based on new evidence that was uncovered during the discovery of her prior suits; the evidence revealed: (1) Both harassers deliberately ignored Petitioner and excluded her from academic : projects after being informed of her report to ODEA regarding their misconduct. . (2) ODEA sought to get rid of Petitioner by denying her legal student employee , status when she challenged their violations of University Policy. The new claims were dismissed under “28 U.S.C. § to state a claim.” . Reasonable inference. But for Petitioner’s statutorily protected activities (reporting to ODEA), would the harassers have stopped academically interacting with her and excluded her from academic projects? But for Petitioner’s statutorily protected activities (challenging ODEA’s violation of University Policy), would ODEA have stopped their investigation by denying her legal status? Given the situation, the questions presented are: (1) Whether res judicata & collateral estoppel prevent relitigation of claims and issues in a prior suit when a judge’s acts in the prior suit led to a judicial result that precludes all resort to judicial remedies to a litigant. (2) Whether Petitioner provided “enough facts” to allow the court to draw reasonable inference that Defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. . Ill