Murphy v. Bastiampillai

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 18, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-1827
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) KEVIN DONNELL MURPHY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01827 (UNA) ) OLIVIA BASTIAMPILLAI, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and

Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s IFP

Application is granted, and for the reasons explained below, this matter is dismissed.

Plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, sues an official associated with the Federal Aviation

Administration (“FAA”). See Compl. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant and the FAA engaged

in “unauthorized purging of grant applications” that he submitted to the FAA on behalf of himself

and his company, Alkebulan Airlines Corporation. See id. at 16. He contends that this purging

violated the Federal Records Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments. See id. at 9–12, 16–22. He demands damages and equitable relief. See id. at 22–

26.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata. “The doctrine of res judicata prevents

repetitious litigation involving the same causes of action or the same issues.” I.A.M. Nat'l Pension

Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 946 (D.C. Cir. 1983). And a court may dismiss a

claim or issue sua sponte when it is on notice that that the claim or issue has been previously

decided, in an effort to prevent “unnecessary judicial waste.” Walker v. Seldman, 471 F. Supp. 2d 106, 114 n.12 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000) (internal

quotation marks omitted)); see accord Rosendahl v. Nixon, 360 Fed. Appx. 167, 168 (D.C. Cir.

2010) (courts “may raise the res judicata preclusion defense sua sponte”) (citing Brown v. Dist. of

Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1285–86 (D.C. Cir. 2008)) (other citation omitted). More specifically,

res judicata and collateral estoppel “are so integral to the administration of the courts that a court

may invoke [them] sua sponte[,]” Fenwick v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 2d 108, 116 (D.D.C.

2010) (alterations in original) (quoting McGee v. District of Columbia, 646 F. Supp. 2d 115, 123

(D.D.C. 2009); citing Stanton v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 127 F.3d 72, 77 (D.C. Cir.

1997)), because the Court bears a responsibility to “conserve judicial resources, avoid inconsistent

results, engender respect for judgments of predictable and certain effect, and to prevent serial

forum-shopping and piecemeal litigation[,]” Hardison v. Alexander, 655 F.2d 1281, 1288 (D.C.

Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff already unsuccessfully filed a substantially similar, if not identical, lawsuit against

the same Defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. See Murphy v.

Bastiampillai, No. 24-cv-01808 (D. Md. filed June 21, 2024) (“Murphy I”), at Complaint, ECF

No. 1; see id. at Memorandum Opinion (Sept. 25, 2025), ECF No. 47; Order (Sept. 25, 2025)

(granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment), ECF No. 48.

Whether a case is duplicative turns on whether the two cases at issue share the same

“nucleus of facts.” Drake v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Page

v. United States, 729 F. 2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). And a final judgment on the merits of an

action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating claims that “were or could have been

raised in that action.” Drake, 291 F.3d at 66 (emphasis in original), quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449

U.S. 90, 94 (1980); see also Apotex, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 393 F.3d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Upon review, the Complaint filed in Murphy I unquestionably arises from the very same

facts raised in the Complaint filed in this matter. The final adjudication of Murphy I, which was

affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 26, 2026, see Murphy I at

Judgment of USCA, ECF No. 14; Mandate (Mar. 20, 2026), ECF No. 15, thus bears preclusive

effect on this matter.

For these reasons, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case, are dismissed. 1 A separate

Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: June 18, 2026

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge

1 Plaintiff is forewarned that duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding IFP are also subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, No. 09-0699, 2009 WL 1033269, at *1 n.2 (D.D.C. April 16, 2009), aff’d, 108 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 05, 1997); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir.1995); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994–95 (5th Cir.1993)).