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 u. 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). 1 Bell All. 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).

(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.

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