Jones

Court of Claims

Jones

650 F.2d 288, 224 Ct. Cl. 739, 1980 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 226

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJuly 3, 1980

DocketNo. 168-80C

StatusPublished

This text of 650 F.2d 288 (Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones, 650 F.2d 288, 224 Ct. Cl. 739, 1980 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 226 (cc 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments; former adjudication; res judicata. — On July 3,1980 the court entered the following order:

Before Nichols, Judge, Presiding, Kashiwa and Smith, Judges.

This case comes before the court, without oral argument, on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs prior suit in this court, Jones v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 504 (1974), reveals that he sought damages of $50 million for the use of surveillance equipment by the Government that he claimed he owned, as well as $25 million in damages for the use of the equipment in a conspiracy to murder his family. By order dated December 7, 1979, the court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss noting that plaintiffs claim sounded in tort. Furthermore, the claim was barred by the 6-year statute of limitations. No appeal was taken from that ruling.

Plaintiff now alleges that in 1975 President Ford indicated the United States was responsible for the death of members of plaintiffs family while using the same surveillance equipment. Once again plaintiff seeks $75 million in damages.

The general rule of res judicata applies to suits involving the same cause of action and provides that a final decision on a claim bars subsequent action on that claim, including [740]*740issues which were not raised. Container Transport International, Inc. v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 713, 468 F.2d 926 (1972). Here plaintiff makes essentially the same claim as before, although it has been altered to sound in contract and to overcome the defense of the statute of limitations. The assertion of different legal theories in a second suit, however, does not prevent the application of res judicata. McCarthy v. Noren, 370 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 917 (1967). Accordingly, plaintiffs current petition must be dismissed as a matter of law.

it is therefore ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiffs petition is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgments; former adjudication; res judicata. — On July 3,1980 the court entered the following order:

Before Nichols, Judge, Presiding, Kashiwa and Smith, Judges.

This case comes before the court, without oral argument, on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs prior suit in this court, Jones v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 504 (1974), reveals that he sought damages of $50 million for the use of surveillance equipment by the Government that he claimed he owned, as well as $25 million in damages for the use of the equipment in a conspiracy to murder his family. By order dated December 7, 1979, the court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss noting that plaintiffs claim sounded in tort. Furthermore, the claim was barred by the 6-year statute of limitations. No appeal was taken from that ruling.

Plaintiff now alleges that in 1975 President Ford indicated the United States was responsible for the death of members of plaintiffs family while using the same surveillance equipment. Once again plaintiff seeks $75 million in damages.

The general rule of res judicata applies to suits involving the same cause of action and provides that a final decision on a claim bars subsequent action on that claim, including [740]*740issues which were not raised. Container Transport International, Inc. v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 713, 468 F.2d 926 (1972). Here plaintiff makes essentially the same claim as before, although it has been altered to sound in contract and to overcome the defense of the statute of limitations. The assertion of different legal theories in a second suit, however, does not prevent the application of res judicata. McCarthy v. Noren, 370 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 917 (1967). Accordingly, plaintiffs current petition must be dismissed as a matter of law.

it is therefore ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiffs petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 F.2d 288, 224 Ct. Cl. 739, 1980 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-cc-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack