Wattleton v. Holder

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 21, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2014-0281
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

UI\HTED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT FEB 2 l 2014 FoR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA c‘¢",'jr'fs» §df't-hf;';fifsi;=rfig §fa»(i:l;r|:»:g¥ a

David Earl Wattleton, Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr.,

\/\J\é\é\/\J\J\/\J\J

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff is an individual civilly committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 4243 at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. He has submitted an "Emergency Application for Expedited Mandatory Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment and Damages," construed as a complaint, in which he again claims that "the term ‘writ of habeas corpus’ as used in sub-section (g) of [18 U.S.C. § 4247] is unconstitutionally vague and should be stuck down . . . ." Ia'. at 1. The plaintiff has already unsuccessfully litigated this issue. See Waltleton v. Hola’er, No. 13-0375, 2013 WL 1222943 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2013), a/j"d, 534 Fed. Appx. 3 (D,C. Cir. 2013). Hence, this case will be dismissed as procedurally barred. Under the principle of res jua'z`cala, a final judgment on the merits in one action "bars any

further claim based on the same ‘nucleus of facts’ . . . ." Page v. UnitedState.s‘, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Experl Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). Res judicata bars the relitigation "of issues that were or could have been raised in [the prior] action." Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing

Allen v. McCur/”y, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)); see I.A.M Nal ’l Pensz`on Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. l

Co., 723 F.2d 944, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that resjadicala "forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously"); accord Crowder v. Bierman, Geesing, and Ward LLC, 713 F. Supp. 2d 6, 10 (D.D.C. 2010). 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. 2()10) (citing Arizona v. Call_'fornia, 530 U.S. 392, 412~13 (2000); Brown v. D.C., 514 F.3d 1279, 1285-86 (D.C. Cir. 2()08)), and a "district court may apply res judicata upon taking judicial notice of [a] [party’s] previous case," Tinsley v. Eqaifax Credit Info. Serv’s, Inc., No. 99-7031, 1999 WL 50672O (D.C. Cir. June 2, 1999) (per curiam) (citing Gullo v. Veterans Cooperative Housl`ng Ass'n, 269 F.2d 517 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (per curiam)). Res judicata therefore forecloses this action.'

?zwl

yUnitefil/States District Judge

Date: january 517 ,2014

l A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.