## Facts

- Private detectives observed Rinehart at a street intersection speaking with a motorcyclist and reported to county police that he was falsely representing himself as a police officer.
- County police officers arrested Rinehart and state charges were brought, including impersonating a government official, unlawful use of weapons, and resisting arrest.
- Rinehart was convicted in state court, but the conviction was later reversed for insufficient evidence.
- Rinehart filed a federal civil-rights action alleging constitutional violations arising from the arrest and prosecution.
- The district court dismissed the first federal complaint for failure to state a claim, finding the pleadings did not adequately allege lack of probable cause; the court also denied leave to amend, and Rinehart did not appeal.
- Rinehart later filed a second federal complaint based on the same events but expressly alleged the arrest lacked probable cause.
- The district court dismissed the second action as barred by res judicata, and Rinehart appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a prior dismissal for failure to state a claim, which is silent as to being “without prejudice,” operates as a judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
2. Whether a second suit based on the same underlying events is barred when it adds a previously omitted, curative allegation (lack of probable cause) to restate the same claim.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the second action.
- A district court order dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim, if it does not specify that the dismissal is without prejudice, is treated as a judgment on the merits and is res judicata as to the claim as it then existed.
- The second complaint asserted the same underlying claim and merely attempted to correct a pleading deficiency identified in the first case; claim preclusion therefore applied.
- The proper procedural routes after the first dismissal were to obtain a dismissal expressly without prejudice, secure leave to amend in the same case, or appeal; refiling a new action was barred.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal that is silent on prejudice is a final judgment on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion.
- Claim preclusion applies when a later action asserts the same claim, even if the plaintiff adds factual allegations that could have been pleaded in the first action.
- After dismissal for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must seek amendment or appellate review; a new suit is not available to relitigate the same claim absent a non-prejudicial dismissal.

## Conclusion

The court held that the first unappealed failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal—because it did not state it was without prejudice—precluded a second action based on the same arrest and prosecution, even though the later complaint added an express allegation that the arrest lacked probable cause.


Rinehart v. Locke, 454 F.2d 313 (7th Cir. 1971)