Lansana Mansaray v. Robert Wenner

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: June 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-1591
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-1591 __________

LANSANA MANSARAY, Appellant

v.

ROBERT WENNER; KEVIN DALY; OIL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF OIL CITY, CITY COUNCIL ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00081) District Judge: Honorable Susan Paradise Baxter ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 6, 2025 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 9, 2025) ___________

OPINION* ___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Pro se Appellant Lansana Mansaray appeals from the District Court’s grant of

Appellees’ motion to dismiss his amended complaint for failure to state a claim based on

res judicata. For the following reasons, we will affirm.

I

Mansaray filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania asserting that his civil rights were violated when local municipal police

officers purportedly sent a biased police report to the United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services (USCIS). The report stated that Mansaray posed a danger to the

community. Because of this report, Mansaray claimed, immigration authorities denied his

I-360 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) petition, which led to his deportation.

Mansaray named four Defendants in his amended federal complaint; they were: (1)

Robert Wenner; (2) Kevin Daly; (3) the Oil City Police Department; and (4) the Oil City

Council. In his amended complaint, Mansaray noted a prior separate state court case in

the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Venango County, that had been decided

against him.

Ultimately, the District Court granted the Appellees’ motion to dismiss

Mansaray’s amended complaint pursuant to res judicata. The District Court specifically

relied on a December 5, 2022 order from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,

Venango County. In that case, like his federal case, Mansaray sued Henner and Daly for

sending the purportedly biased report to USCIS that caused him to be deported. The

Court of Common Pleas dismissed Mansaray’s state complaint with prejudice for failure

2 to state a claim. Mansaray did not appeal that order to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The District Court determined that the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas’ judgment

precluded this federal action.

Mansaray appealed the District Court’s judgment. After the matter was fully

briefed by the parties in this Court, Mansaray filed a motion to strike Appellees’ brief and

requested punitive damages.

II

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review

over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679 F.3d 116,

120 (3d Cir. 2012). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Although res judicata is an affirmative defense, a party can assert

it in a motion to dismiss when, as here, the defense is apparent on the face of the

complaint. See Adams v. Gould Inc., 739 F.2d 858, 870 n.14 (3d Cir. 1984); see also

Hoffman v. Nordic Nats., Inc., 837 F.3d 272, 280 (3d Cir. 2016).

III

The District Court, as detailed above, dismissed Mansaray’s federal amended

complaint as barred by res judicata.1 “In determining the applicability of principles of res

1 The District Court stated that Mansaray’s claims were also likely barred by the statute of limitations. However, given our conclusion that the District Court’s res judicata 3 judicata, we must give the same preclusive effect to the judgment in the common pleas

court case that the courts in Pennsylvania, the state in which the judgment was entered,

would give.” Turner v. Crawford Square Apartments III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 548 (3d Cir.

2006) (citations omitted). Under Pennsylvania law, “[a]ny final, valid judgment on the

merits by a court of competent jurisdiction precludes any future suit between the parties

or their privies on the same cause of action.” Balent v. City of Wilkes–Barre, 669 A.2d

309, 313 (Pa. 1995) (citation omitted). The doctrine “applies not only to claims actually

litigated, but also to claims which could have been litigated during the first proceeding if

they were part of the same cause of action.” Id.

Mansaray’s state case resulted in a final judgment on the merits as his state case

was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. See Brown v. Cooney, 442 A.2d

324, 326 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982) (“Dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim is a

final judgment on the merits.”). The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas determined

that Mansaray failed to allege facts showing that the transmission of the report

constituted a breach of any duty owed to him and that Mansaray failed to show he was

deprived of any constitutional or statutory right.

Mansaray also asserted the same cause of action in both his state and federal

cases—that his civil rights were violated when officers purportedly sent a biased police

report to immigration officials which led to his deportation. Indeed, in both cases,

analysis was sound, we need not consider that potential alternative rationale given by the District Court. 4 Mansaray sued Wenner and Daly. While Mansaray also sued the Oil City Police

Department and the Oil City Council in his amended federal complaint, that does not

change the result that the District Court properly applied res judicata to bar Mansaray’s

federal suit. See Gambocz v. Yelencsics, 468 F.2d 837, 841 (3d Cir. 1972) (“[R]es

judicata may be invoked against a plaintiff who has previously asserted essentially the

same claim against different defendants where there is a close or significant relationship

between successive defendants.”); Helmig v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., 131 A.2d 622, 627 (Pa.

1957) (stating that res judicata “should not be defeated by minor differences of form,

parties or allegations” and that a shuffling of defendants on the record should not be

permitted to nullify the res judicata rule).

Accordingly, for these reasons, the District Court properly applied res judicata in

granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss. Thus, we will affirm. Mansaray’s pending

motions before this Court are denied.