Taylor v. United States of America

Opinion

6~/\

FILED

l 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT clerk mgt t F@R me DISTRK:T @1= @@LUMBIA ,.,~,i.,s.s:.ct c.:'z¢:.:'.':,.:ia

Stacy Allen Taylor, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

V. ) civil Action NO. 14-1223 (UNA)

United States of America et al ., ) )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs Complaint accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks compensation and injunctive relief for his alleged work as an informant for the Central intelligence Agency. See generally Compl. The United States Court of Federal Claims found that plaintiff s previous complaint based on the same set of facts forming the basis of this action was frivolous and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed. See Taylor v. Um`ted Sta!es, No. 14-393C, 2014 WL 1874698 (Fed. Cl. May 9, 2014), ajf’d, -~- Fed.Appx --, 2014 WL 3827558 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 20]4).

Under the principle of resjudicata, a final judgment on the merits in one action "bars any further claim based on the same ‘nucleus of facts’ . . . ." Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Expert Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.Zd 1227, 1234 (D.C. Cir.

]977)). Resj`udz'cata bars the relitigation "of issues that were or could have been raised in [the

prior] action." Drake v. FAA, 291 F.Bd 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing

l

Allen v, McCurry, 444`9 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)); see £A.M Nat’l Pensz`on Fund v. lna'us. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that res judicata "forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously"); accord Crowder v. Bierman, Geesz'ng, and Wara’ LLC, 713 F. Supp. 2d 6, 19 (D.D.C. 201 0). Although res judicata is an affirmative defense that typically must be pled, courts "may raise the res judicata preclusion defense sua sponte,” Rosendahl v. Nixon, 360 Fed. Appx. 167, 168 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citing Arizona v. Calg`fornz'a, 530 U.S. 392, 412-13 (2(]00); Brown v. D.C., 514 F.Bd l279, 1285-86 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), and a "district court may apply res judicata upon taking judicial notice of [a] [party’s] previous case." Tinsley v. Equifax Crf*edit lnfo. Serv ’s, Inc., No. 99-7031, 1999 WL 506720 (D.C. Cir. June 2, 1999) (per curiam) (¢iting Gullo v. Veterans Cooperative Housing Ass'n, 269 F.2d 517 (D.C. Cir. l959) (per curiam)). Since the instant complaint is based on the same "tale of intemational intrigue" found

frivolous in the earlier dismissed action, and seeks the same monetary and injunctive relief,

Taylor, 2014 WL 3827558, at * l, this case is barred by resjudicata. A separate Order of

A/

Uni€d$jls Di'strici Judge Date: August g q , ?014 m

dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.