Smith v. Miramar Police Department et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Rayon Smith,
Plaintiff,
v.
Miramar Police Department, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04047-PHX-KML
ORDER
This is the second suit plaintiff Rayon Smith has filed in this court against the same
defendants based on the same events. Smith’s previous suit was dismissed for failure to
state a claim for relief and Smith did not appeal. Smith cannot pursue the same claims
simply by filing a new suit. The complaint is dismissed and all motions denied as moot.
In August 2025, Smith filed a complaint against defendants Miramar Police
Department, Cockrell Hill Police Department, Tempe Police Department, Waymo LLC,
Covert Bee Cave, and various John Does. CV-25-2780-PHX-SMB. The court screened the
complaint and determined Smith was attempting “to assert claims against non-jural entities
and otherwise fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Doc. 5 at 4, CV-25-
2780-PHX-SMB. Smith’s complaint was dismissed but he was granted leave to amend.
Smith filed an amended complaint and on September 22, 2025, the court dismissed that
complaint for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. The court determined further leave
to amend would be futile, and the case was closed. Doc. 11, CV-25-2780-PHX-SMB.
Smith did not appeal.
Case 2:25-cv-04047-KML Document 8 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On October 29, 2025, Smith initiated this suit by filing a complaint, an application
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion to appoint counsel, and a motion to allow
electronic filing. (Doc. 1, 3-5.) The complaint is formatted differently from the complaints
Smith filed in his earlier case, but he names the same defendants and is attempting to sue
those defendants for the same alleged wrongs as his earlier suit. Based on the many alleged
wrongs by the defendants, Smith seeks “[c]ompensatory and punitive damages of
$500,000,000 (Five Hundred Billion Dollars) TAX FREE.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) Smith also seeks
a “permanent federal injunction” prohibiting among other things all “surveillance . . . or
further unauthorized access to [his] property or communications.” (Doc. 1 at 4.)
Smith’s previous suit was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Such a dismissal “is
a judgment on the merits to which res judicata applies.” Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d
953, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (simplified). And “[r]es judicata bars relitigation of all grounds of
recovery that were asserted, or could have been asserted, in a previous action between the
parties.” U.S. ex rel. Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 147 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 1998). The
claims Smith is attempting to bring in the present case either were asserted or could have
been asserted in his previous suit. Therefore, this complaint dismissed without leave to
amend. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming in forma
pauperis screening based on res judicata).
IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion to
Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 4, 5) are DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated this 31st day of October, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-04047-KML Document 8 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2