Smith v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

District of Columbia

Smith v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMay 4, 2010

DocketCivil Action No. 2010-0703

StatusPublished

This text of Smith v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (Smith v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, (D.D.C. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED sTATEs 1)1sTR1cT coURT F 1- , F0R THE DISTRICT oF CQLUMB!A L E D>

Michael smich, ) MAY 04 mm Plain¢ifr, § C|;;|g'

The plaintiff has filed a an application to proceed without prepayment of fees and a pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed in accordance with the jurisprudential doctrine of res judicata.

The plaintiff, Michael Smith, brings this "complaint for employment discrimination" against the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission ("WSSC"), and three WSSC employees, and two investigators employed by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Complaint at l. He seeks monetary damages from the WSSC and its emp1oyees, and seeks unspecified injunctive relief against the two EEOC investigators. See id. at 8 11 (A), 9 11 (B). Smith alleges that the three WSSC employees and the two EEOC employees had knowledge of facts material to his civil rights claims previously filed against the WSSC, id. 1111 8, 10, that the three WSSC employees subjected Smith to discrimination and various torts, ia'. 11 l2, and that "[a]t no time did any of the defendants . . . ever produce any evidence that WSSC

or EEOC were in compliance with any of the federal laws . . . .," id. 11 ll.

Smith, who was fired in 2003 from his job with WSSC, filed employment discrimination and other claims against WSSC in 2004, which resulted in a judgment being entered in favor of the defendant. See Smith v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Civil Actions No: RDB-04-2288, RDB-05-1 153, 2006 WL 4706998, *8 (D. Md. Oct. 4, 2006). To the extent that Smith has stated any claim of discrimination in this complaint, it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which stands for the proposition that "a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action." Allen v. McCurry, 4498 U.S. 90, 94 (l980). Therefore, the claims against WSSC and its employees will be dismissed as barred by res judicata.

The complaint does not state a cognizable claim -- either for employment discrimination or anything else _ against the two EEOC investigators. These defendants had no employment relationship with Smith and owed him no duty to "produce any evidence that WSSC or EEOC were in compliance with any of the federal laws." Complaint 11 ll.

Accordingly, the claims against WSSC and its three employees will be dismissed on res judicata grounds, and the claims against the two EEOC investigators will be dismissed for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A separate order accompanies this

%a»€/§ %e

Date: )_ 5’/ 101 9 Uni{ed States District Judge

memorandum opinion.

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

UNITED sTATEs 1)1sTR1cT coURT F 1- , F0R THE DISTRICT oF CQLUMB!A L E D>

Michael smich, ) MAY 04 mm Plain¢ifr, § C|;;|g'

The plaintiff has filed a an application to proceed without prepayment of fees and a pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed in accordance with the jurisprudential doctrine of res judicata.

The plaintiff, Michael Smith, brings this "complaint for employment discrimination" against the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission ("WSSC"), and three WSSC employees, and two investigators employed by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Complaint at l. He seeks monetary damages from the WSSC and its emp1oyees, and seeks unspecified injunctive relief against the two EEOC investigators. See id. at 8 11 (A), 9 11 (B). Smith alleges that the three WSSC employees and the two EEOC employees had knowledge of facts material to his civil rights claims previously filed against the WSSC, id. 1111 8, 10, that the three WSSC employees subjected Smith to discrimination and various torts, ia'. 11 l2, and that "[a]t no time did any of the defendants . . . ever produce any evidence that WSSC

or EEOC were in compliance with any of the federal laws . . . .," id. 11 ll.

Smith, who was fired in 2003 from his job with WSSC, filed employment discrimination and other claims against WSSC in 2004, which resulted in a judgment being entered in favor of the defendant. See Smith v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Civil Actions No: RDB-04-2288, RDB-05-1 153, 2006 WL 4706998, *8 (D. Md. Oct. 4, 2006). To the extent that Smith has stated any claim of discrimination in this complaint, it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which stands for the proposition that "a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action." Allen v. McCurry, 4498 U.S. 90, 94 (l980). Therefore, the claims against WSSC and its employees will be dismissed as barred by res judicata.

The complaint does not state a cognizable claim -- either for employment discrimination or anything else _ against the two EEOC investigators. These defendants had no employment relationship with Smith and owed him no duty to "produce any evidence that WSSC or EEOC were in compliance with any of the federal laws." Complaint 11 ll.

Accordingly, the claims against WSSC and its three employees will be dismissed on res judicata grounds, and the claims against the two EEOC investigators will be dismissed for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A separate order accompanies this

%a»€/§ %e

Date: )_ 5’/ 101 9 Uni{ed States District Judge

memorandum opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-washington-suburban-sanitary-commission-dcd-2010.