Shena Hickman v. Facebook/Meta

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: 25-2733
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

BLD-084 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-2733 __________

SHENA HICKMAN, Appellant

v.

FACEBOOK/META ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-02012) District Judge: Honorable Esther Salas ____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 12, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and BOVE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed March 25, 2026) _________

OPINION* _________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM

Shena Hickman appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing her civil rights

complaint with prejudice. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm the

District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

As the District Court explained, this is at least the third action filed by Hickman

against defendant Facebook/Meta. She filed this action in the Superior Court of New

Jersey, and Facebook/Meta removed it to the United States District Court for the District

of New Jersey. In the complaint, Hickman alleged claims for race, sex, and age

discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,

as well as claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §

621 et seq. She also alleged that she worked for Facebook/Meta in its AR/VR Reality

Labs’ marketing advertising group, and that she has faced retaliation for engaging in the

“protected activity” of whistleblowing by exposing “criminal wrongdoing in hiring” by

that group. ECF No. 1-1 at 11, 15.1 In particular, Hickman maintained that, since she

became a whistleblower, Facebook/Meta, through its “network” of “KKK Klansman,

white Supremacy, Neo Nazi, local police, . . . and the people they control,” has harassed

and drugged her, and physically, mentally, and financially abused her. Id. at 11-12.

1 Unless otherwise noted, all ECF references are to the underlying District Court case. 2 Facebook/Meta moved to dismiss the complaint arguing, inter alia, that the claims

were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. The District Court agreed and granted

the motion to dismiss. This timely appeal followed.

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

over the District Court’s decision to grant the motion to dismiss, McGovern v. City of

Phila., 554 F.3d 114, 115 (3d Cir. 2009), including its decision to apply claim preclusion,

see Erie Indem. Co. v. Stephenson, 157 F.4th 265, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2025). We may take

summary action if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R.

27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

We agree with the District Court that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars

Hickman’s suit. “The preclusive effect of a judgment is defined by claim preclusion and

issue preclusion, which are collectively referred to as res judicata.” Taylor v. Sturgell,

553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The elements of federal-

law res judicata include “(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2)

the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of

action.” Marmon Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 726 F.3d 387, 394

(3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). As the District Court explained, all three of these

elements are satisfied here.

Prior to this suit, Hickman brought suit against Facebook/Meta in the District

Courts for the Northern District of California, see N.D. Cal. Civ. No. 4:24-cv-07470

3 (Hickman I), and the Southern District of Florida, see S.D. Fla. Civ. No. 1:25-cv-21281

(Hickman II). In both of those cases, the claims were dismissed with prejudice, and thus

there was a final judgment on the merits, see Papera v. Pa. Quarried Bluestone Co., 948

F.3d 607, 611 (3d Cir. 2020) (recognizing that “[a] dismissal with prejudice operates as

an adjudication on the merits, so it ordinarily precludes future claims” (quotation marks

and citation omitted)); see also Bernstein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d 190, 224-25 (7th Cir.

2013) (recognizing that a dismissal on res judicata grounds is a “final judgment on the

merits” (citation omitted)). See ECF Nos. 14-3 (December 26, 2024 Order in Hickman I,

dismissing the claims as “without legal merit” and noting amendment would be futile);2

S.D. Fla. Civ. No. 1:25-cv-21281, ECF No. 28 (May 12, 2025 Order dismissing the

claims in Hickman II as barred by res judicata in light of Hickman I). And Hickman

asserted the same claims against Facebook/Meta in all three suits based on the same

underlying set of facts. See ECF Nos. 1-1 at 9-17, 14-2, & 14-5.

Here, Hickman’s response to the motion to dismiss was filled with speculative

conspiracy theories, such as her allegation that the District Courts’ orders in Hickman I

and II were unfair and “unreliable” because Facebook/Meta used its “network” to

“illegally cyberattack” the dockets in those cases and “tamper” with her filings. ECF No.

19 at 4; see also id. at 2. Hickman offered no argument that would undermine the

2 The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as frivolous. See ECF No. 14-4, March 26, 2025 Order in C.A. No. 25-45.

4 District Court’s conclusion that res judicata barred her suit, and none is apparent.

Accordingly, dismissal with prejudice was proper. See Winget v. JP Morgan Chase

Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 572 (6th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that a dismissal on res

judicata grounds is necessarily with prejudice because amendment would be futile); see

also Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275, 285 n.6 (3d Cir. 2021).

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails to present a substantial question, and we

will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.3 We note that many of the motions

and other documents that Hickman has filed in this appeal are frivolous, repetitive, and

otherwise abusive. Hickman is warned that, if she continues to file documents with this

Court that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive, we will prohibit her from filing

documents using the Court’s emergency motions email address and from obtaining

electronic filing privileges pursuant to 3d Cir. L.A.R. Misc. 113.2(d). We also will

consider imposing other sanctions. Such sanctions could include a monetary fine, an

order restricting her ability to file documents with this Court until the fine is paid, and

other restrictions on her ability to file documents with this Court. In addition, now that

3 On appeal, Hickman has filed scores of motions and “emergency motions” alleging that Facebook/Meta, through its lawyers and “network,” including the New York City Police Department, is retaliating against her in various ways, such as by threatening, stalking, drugging, harassing, assaulting, and cyberattacking her. These motions are denied, as are all of Hickman’s other motions, including her motion for appointment of counsel, motions which “Request Email Notification CM/ECF Docket Updates and Waive Outstanding Pacer Fees,” “Motion to Submit Photographic Evidence,” and motions for a restraining order. 5 we have resolved this appeal, Hickman is prohibited from filing further documents in this

appeal except for a timely petition for rehearing and any motions necessary to bring a

timely petition for rehearing into compliance with the rules governing such petitions.

Any violation of this prohibition will result in the loss of Hickman’s ability to submit

documents through the emergency motions email address, and could result in further

sanctions, as noted above.