Washington v. AT&T Incorporated
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/19/14. (ASL)
2014 Sep-19 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
LEROY ANDREW WASHINGTON, }
Case No.: 2:12-cv-3808-MHH
This is an employment discrimination action brought pursuant to Title VII,
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 18
U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States).
Consistent with the
Court’s discussion on the record during the hearing in this matter on September 18,
2014, the Court grants AT&T’s motion to dismiss.
Mr. Washington’s federal claims relating to employment actions that
occurred before and during 2005 are time-barred.
Mr. Washington’s federal
employment claims also fail because Mr. Washington previously has litigated
those claims unsuccessfully in this Court and in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. See Washington v. Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc., 2:06-CV-1320 (Docs. 64–
65); Washington v. BellSouth, No. 07-15815 (11th Cir. July 8, 2008); Washington
v. Bellsouth Corp., 2:10-CV-3306 (Doc. 2). Consequently, the doctrine of res
judicata bars Mr. Washington’s federal employment claims.1 The Court dismisses
those claims for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
To the extent that Mr. Washington attempts to assert state law claims
pertaining to alleged attorney misconduct, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS AT&T’s motion to dismiss
(Doc. 9). The Court directs the Clerk to please TERM Doc. 9.
DONE and ORDERED this September 19, 2014.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Mr. Washington argues that the attorneys involved in his previous lawsuits committed fraud on
the Court. Courts have expressed hostility to the “proposition that fraud on the court is an
authority to allow a collateral attack on a judgment—i.e., defeating the defense of res judicata.”
Plotner v. AT & T Corp., 224 F.3d 1161, 1170 (10th Cir. 2000). “Once jurisdiction is
established, fraud on the court will not vitiate the preclusive effect of the court’s judgment unless
the rendering court sets it aside.” Caliendo v. Rodriguez,70 F.3d 1274 (Table), 1995 WL
709251, *3 (7th Cir. Nov. 30, 1995); see also Johnson v. Champions, 909 F. Supp. 2d 1226,
1241 (S.D. Ala. 2014). If Mr. Washington wishes to challenge the judgment in Case 2:06-CV1320 based on his allegation of fraud on the Court, he must raise the challenge in that action
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He may not pursue his arguments in a new
lawsuit such as this.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?