Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00478-UNA
04-10-2013
Daniel Pailes, Plaintiff, v. The United States Peace Corps, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's submission accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is a resident of Salisbury, Massachusetts, suing the United States Peace Corps. He has submitted a document captioned "New Facts, Evidence and Circumstances in Mali West Africa to pre-empt a new trial and hearing for Daniel Pailes former Peace Corps Volunteer," which should have been considered for filing in plaintiff's dismissed case, Pailes v. United States Peace Corps., Civ. Action No. 08-2214. Since plaintiff is seeking to proceed in forma pauperis and the earlier action has been closed since 2010, the Court will construe plaintiff's submission as a new complaint and will dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as foreclosed by the earlier action.
Under the principle of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits in one action "bars any further claim based on the same 'nucleus of facts' . . . ." Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Expert Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). Res judicata bars the relitigation "of issues that were or could have been raised in [the prior] action." Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)); see I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that res judicata "forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously"); accord Crowder v. Bierman, Geesing, and Ward LLC, 713 F. Supp. 2d 6, 10 (D.D.C. 2010). Although res judicata is an affirmative defense that typically must be pled, courts "may raise the res judicata preclusion defense sua sponte," Rosendahl v. Nixon, 360 Fed. Appx. 167, 168 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citing Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412-13 (2000); Brown v. D.C., 514 F.3d 1279, 1285-86 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), and a "district court may apply res judicata upon taking judicial notice of [a] [party's] previous case." Tinsley v. Equifax Credit Info. Serv's, Inc., No. 99-7031, 1999 WL 506720 (D.C. Cir. June 2, 1999) (per curiam) (citing Gullo v. Veterans Cooperative Housing Ass'n, 269 F.2d 517 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (per curiam)).
Res judicata "applies to dismissal[s] for lack of jurisdiction as well as for other grounds . . . .," Dozier v. Ford Motor Co., 702 F. 2d 1189, 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1983), including untimeliness. See Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (reaching "res judicata defense for the first time on appeal" and holding "that it bars [] claims" previously dismissed as time-barred). Plaintiff's earlier action based on the same nucleus of facts underlying this action was dismissed as time-barred. Pailes v. U.S. Peace Corps, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009), aff'd, No. 09-5400, 2010 WL 2160012 (D.C. Cir. May 27, 2010). Hence, res judicata bars this action. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_____________
United States District Judge