Tall v. The Partnership Development Group Inc. et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 4/28/2016. (c/m 4/28/16 bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
HESMAN TALL,
*

Plaintiff,

*
v.

Civil Action No. RDB-15-3352

THE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
*

*

*

*
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Hesman Tall (“Mr. Tall” or “Plaintiff”) brings this pro se action against
Defendants The Partnership Development Group, Inc. (“PDG”), PDG Rehabilitative
Services, 1 RISE Program, 2 and the Maryland State Department of Education, Division of
Rehabilitation Services (“DORS”)3 (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging various violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and 28 C.F.R. §

1 Plaintiff improperly names “PDG Rehabilitative Services” as a defendant to this action. “PDG
Rehabilitative Services,” however, is simply a program or subgroup of Defendant PDG, and thus not an
individual defendant. To the extent that any claims are asserted against “PDG Rehabilitative Services” as a
separate defendant, those claims are encompassed by the claims pending against Defendant PDG. “PDG
Rehabilitative Services” is thus dismissed with prejudice from this action as a separate defendant.
2 Once again, Plaintiff improperly names “RISE Program” as a defendant to this action. The “RISE
Program,” or “Reach Independence through Self-Employment,” is a self-employment program for disabled
individuals initiated by the Maryland State Department of Education, Division of Rehabilitation Services
pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 21-304(b). To the extent that any claims are asserted against “RISE
Program” as a separate defendant, those claims are encompassed by the claims pending against Defendant
Maryland State Department of Education, Division of Rehabilitation Services. “RISE Program” is thus
dismissed with prejudice from this action as a separate defendant.
3 Although Plaintiff names Maryland State Department of Education and Maryland Division of Rehabilitative
Services as separate defendants, DORS is a division within the Maryland State Department of Education, and
not a separate entity. Furthermore, Hall incorrectly names DORS as the “Maryland Division of Rehabilitative
Services,” whereas the correct appellation is “Division of Rehabilitation Services.” The Clerk of the Court is
directed to revise the docket to reflect the correct name of this defendant.

1

35.130, negligence under Maryland law, and “discrimination in an self-employment based job
program.” Plaintiff contends that Defendants acted in a negligent and discriminatory fashion
by rejecting his application to participate in the RISE program.
Presently pending are Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue (ECF No. 6);
Defendant Maryland State Department of Education, Division of Rehabilitation Services’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8); and Defendant The Partnership Development Group,
Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10). The parties’ submissions have been reviewed and
no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue (ECF No. 6) is DENIED as MOOT; Defendant
Maryland State Department of Education, Division of Rehabilitation Services’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE; and Defendant The Partnership
Development Group, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED WITH
PREJUDICE. In sum, Plaintiff’s claims against DORS are barred by the sovereign immunity
given to the states by the Eleventh Amendment, U.S. Const. amend XI. Moreover, this case
is nearly identical to an earlier state action dismissed by the Circuit Court for Howard
County, Maryland on October 15, 2015. This case is thus also barred by res judicata and
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all Defendants.
BACKGROUND
In a ruling on a motion to dismiss, this Court must accept the factual allegations in
the plaintiff’s complaint as true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs. See, e.g., Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999). Moreover, a
pro se litigant’s complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the
2

litigant can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Yet, a plaintiff’s status as pro se does not
absolve him of the duty to plead adequately. See Stone v. Warfield, 184 F.R.D. 553, 555 (D.
Md. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Univ. of Md. Sch. Of Law, 130 F.R.D. 616, 617 (D. Md. 1989),
aff’d, 900 F.2d 249, 1990 WL 41120 (4th Cir. 1990)).
This action arises from the Plaintiff’s application for an entrepreneurial grant through
the Maryland State Department of Education, Division of Rehabilitation Services
(“DORS”.) Plaintiff Hesman Tall is a disabled African-American man who allegedly receives
certain Social Security Administration benefits. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5, ECF No. 1. He is the owner
of Anna Banana Beverages (“Anna Banana”). Id. ¶ 6.
In 2011, Mr. Tall applied for a grant under DORS’s Reach Independence through
Self-Employment (“RISE”) program, which allegedly seeks to help “disabled applicants . . .
create a business plan, create financial data and conduct real-life market research to prove
that their business can generate enough revenue for applicants to become self-employed in a
self-sustaining business . . . [.]” Id. ¶¶ 2-3. DORS employs Defendant PDG to provide
applicants with technical support and “analyze [applicants’] business plans, projections and
financial Proformas . . . and then recommend to fund or not to fund applicants.” Id. ¶¶ 2, 4.
To accompany his application, Mr. Tall alleges that he submitted a business plan, financial
proforma statements and projections, and conducted market research, market validation, and
proof of concept at the “Howard Community College Market festival.” Id. ¶¶ 8, 11, 20, 21,
27-29, 33. His market research allegedly demonstrated that Anna Banana would generate
annual revenues of $157,700 with twelve beverages sold per hour. Id. ¶¶ 9, 20.
3

After submitting his application, Mr. Tall requested a hearing to present his company.
Id. ¶ 12. He claims that his request was ignored for six months, but was finally granted on
December 2, 2014. Id. ¶¶12, 13, 15. At the hearing, DORS and PDG allegedly “ignored”
Plaintiff’s market research, business plan, cash flow projections, and other data. Id. ¶ 15. On
December 30, 2014, Defendants rejected his application, stating that Mr. Tall did not have a
viable location or operations plan. Id. ¶¶ 15, 24, 31. He claims that this decision “completely
ignored the evidence” of the alleged viability of his company. Id. ¶ 17. Moreover, he alleges
that PDG documents reveal that it “has consistently funded Caucasian-owned businesses at
more than twice the rate of qualified African American owned businesses.” Id. ¶ 5.
Pursuant to Md. Code Regs. 13A.11.07, Mr. Tall filed a request for review by a
Maryland administrative law judge of DORS’s rejection of his application on January 5,
2015.4 Def. DORS’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 2, 1, ECF No. 8-5 (Copy of Administrative Review
Final Default Order). He asserted allegations identical to those alleged in the present action.
Def. DORS’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 1, ECF No. 8-4 (Copy of Administrative Review
Complaint). Mr. Tall failed to participate in a prehearing telephone conference with the
Honorable William Somerville, an administrative law judge of the Maryland Office of
In reviewing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
Court “may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record . . . [and] consider documents attached to
the complaint, as well as those attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint
and authentic.” Philips v. Pitt County Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Hall v. Virginia, 385
F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2004) (“[W]hen a defendant attaches a document to its motion to dismiss, ‘a court
may consider it in determining whether to dismiss the complaint [if] it was integral to and explicitly relied on
in the complaint and [if] the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity.’”) (quoting Phillips v. LCI Int’l Inc., 190
F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir. 1999))). As such, this Court takes judicial notice of “Exhibit 1” (a copy of Plaintiff’s
Administrative Review Complaint), ECF No. 8-4; “Exhibit 2” (a copy of the Administrative Review Final
Default Order), ECF No. 8-5; “Exhibit 3” (a copy of the State Court Complaint), ECF No. 8-6; “Exhibit 4”
(a copy of the August 19, 2015 Order), ECF No. 8-7; “Exhibit 5” (a copy of State Court Amended
Complaint), ECF No. 8-8; “Exhibit 6” (a copy of the October 15, 2015 Order), ECF No. 8-9; and “Exhibit
10” (a copy of Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal), ECF No. 8-10. Mr. Tall does not dispute the authenticity of these
documents, as they reflect matters of public record and are integral to Mr. Tall’s claims.
4

4

Administrative Hearings, on February 18, 2015. Def. DORS’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 2, at 1-2.
Although Judge Somerville made numerous attempts to contact him, he never received a
response from Mr. Tall. Id. As such, Judge Somerville issued a Final Default Order
dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint on February 24, 2015. Id. at 2.
On March 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court for Howard County,
Maryland against the present Defendants, DORS and PDG. Def. DORS’s Mot. to Dismiss
Ex. 3, ECF No. 8-6 (Copy of State Court Complaint). He asserted various violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, negligence under Maryland law, race discrimination, and
discrimination under Md. Code Ann., State Fin. & Proc. § 19-101. Id. The factual allegations
of the state court complaint are nearly identical to those asserted in the present action. See
generally id. The Circuit Court for Howard County dismissed Mr. Tall’s complaint on August
19, 2015, but with leave to file an amended complaint. Def. DORS’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 4,
ECF No. 8-7 (Copy of August 19, 2015 Order). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
certain alleged violations of Maryland law. See Def. DORS’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 5, ECF No.
8-8 (Copy of State Court Amended Complaint). After DORS and PDG each moved to
dismiss, the Circuit Court for Howard County granted their motions and dismiss Plaintiff’s
claims on October 15, 2015. Def. DORS’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 6, ECF No. 8-9 (Copy of
October 15, 2015 Order). The following day, Mr. Tall noted an appeal to the Maryland
Court of Special Appeals. Def. DORS’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 7, ECF No. 8-10 (Copy of
Notice of Appeal). His appeal remains pending. See Tall v. Partnership Development Group, et al.,
No. 01787 (Sept. Term 2015).

5

Nevertheless, less than a month later, Mr. Tall filed the present action in this Court.
He appears to assert four claims: Negligence (Count I); “Discrimination in an SelfEmployment Based Job Program” (Count II); Discrimination under Titles I and V of the
ADA (Count III); and “Negligence in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112” (Count IV).
Defendants have each moved for dismissal of the subject Complaint in its entirety.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
I.

Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction challenges a court’s authority to hear the matter brought
by a complaint. See Davis v. Thompson, 367 F. Supp. 2d 792, 799 (D. Md. 2005). This
challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) may proceed either as a facial challenge, asserting that the
allegations in the complaint are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction, or a
factual challenge, asserting “that the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint [are] not
true.” Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). With
respect to a facial challenge, a court will grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction “where a claim fails to allege facts upon which the court may base jurisdiction.”
Davis, 367 F. Supp. 2d at 799.
Where the challenge is factual, “the district court is entitled to decide disputed issues
of fact with respect to subject matter jurisdiction.” Kerns, 585 F.3d at 192. “[T]he court may
look beyond the pleadings and ‘the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view
whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject
matter jurisdiction exists.’” Khoury v. Meserve, 268 F. Supp. 2d 600, 606 (D. Md. 2003)
6

(citation omitted). The court “may regard the pleadings as mere evidence on the issue and
may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for
summary judgment.” Velasco v. Gov’t of Indon., 370 F.3d 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2004); see also
Sharafeldin v. Md. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 94 F. Supp. 2d 680, 684-85 (D. Md. 2000).
A plaintiff carries the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Lovern v. Edwards,
190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999).
II.

Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain

a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P 8(a)(2). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the
dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) is “to test the sufficiency of a complaint and not to resolve contests
surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Presley v. City of
Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006).
The Supreme Court’s opinions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007),
and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), “require that complaints in civil actions be alleged
with greater specificity than previously was required.” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439
(4th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). In Twombly, the Supreme Court articulated “[t]wo working
principles” that courts must employ when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678. First, while a court must accept as true the factual allegations contained in
the complaint, the court is not so constrained when the factual allegations are conclusory or
devoid of any reference to actual events. United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847
7

(4th Cir. 1979). Moreover, a court need not accept any asserted legal conclusions drawn
from the proffered facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. (stating that “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to
plead a claim). In the context of pro se litigants, however, pleadings are “to be liberally
construed,” and are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted); accord Brown v. N.C.
Dept. of Corr., 612 F.3d 720, 724 (4th Cir. 2010).
Second, even a pro se complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege “a plausible
claim for relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also O’Neil v. Ponzi, 394 F. App’x. 795, 796 (2d Cir.
2010).Although a “plaintiff need not plead the evidentiary standard for proving” her claim,
she may no longer rely on the mere possibility that she could later establish her claim.
McCleary-Evans v. Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, 780 F.3d
582, 584 (4th Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (discussing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S.
506 (2002) in light of Twombly and Iqbal).
ANALYSIS
A. Motion to Change Venue
Shortly after filing the subject Complaint, Mr. Tall filed the pending Motion to
Change Venue (ECF No. 6), purportedly pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404, 1412, and 1443.
Plaintiff seeks transfer of this action to the Southern Division of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland. Mot. to Change Venue at 1. He asserts that, as a
longtime resident of Prince George’s County, the adjudication of his case in the Southern
Division would be more convenient.
8

Mr. Tall misunderstands the role of venue in the federal courts. Under 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b), venue is proper in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all
defendants reside in the same State,
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial
part of property that is the subject of the action is situated,
or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if
there is no district in which the action may otherwise be
brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In this case, all parties are residents of Maryland, thus venue is properly
found in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland—in other words, this
Court.
Since venue is clearly proper in this Court, it appears that Plaintiff actually seeks the
re-assignment of this case to a judge in the Southern Division. The assignment of a case to
the Southern Division—Mr. Tall’s preferred location—or the Northern Division—this
Court—is governed by Local Rule 501 (D. Md. 2014). Local Rule 501, however, is simply a
“rule of administrative convenience” that does not “confer any rights upon any litigant.”
Local Rule 501.1. As will be discussed infra, Plaintiff’s claims are clearly barred by res judicata
and will be dismissed with prejudice. This Court thus need not consider whether the
Southern Division would be a more convenient forum for adjudication of this case. His
Motion to Change Venue is denied as moot.
B. Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) – Defendant DORS
DORS moves to dismiss the subject Complaint under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
9

12(b)(1) challenges this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over certain claims, it must be
addressed first. DORS specifically argues that, as a division of a state agency, it is entitled to
sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XI. As such, this
Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s ADA (Counts III and IV) and
negligence claims (Count I).
Turning first to Plaintiff’s claims under Titles I and V of the ADA, this Court
recognizes that “the ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting
States may not be sued by private individuals in federal court.” Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Alabama
v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001) (citing Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73
(2000)). Given this guarantee, Congress may abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment
sovereign immunity only where “it both unequivocally intends to do so and ‘act[s] pursuant
to a valid grant of constitutional authority.” Garrett, 531 U.S. at 363 (quoting Kimel, 528 U.S.
at 73). The United States Supreme Court has concluded, however, that while Congress
certainly intended for Title I of the ADA to apply to the states, the Constitution does not
allow for such broad congressional authority. Garrett, 531 U.S. at 364, 374. Eleventh
Amendment immunity thus bars suits for money damages under Title I of the ADA in
federal court against the states, state agencies (and any sub-agencies therein), and state
officials. Id. at 374; see also Cash v. Granville Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 242 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir.
2001) (explaining that the Eleventh Amendment affords immunity to states, their respective
agencies, state and officials). Suits for money damages against states under Title V of the
ADA are similarly barred. Strong v. Swaim-Stanley, Civ. A. No. WMN-12-1924, 2012 WL

10

4058054, at *3 (D. Md. Sept. 13, 2012) (citing Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986, 988-89 (9th
Cir. 2001)).
In this case, DORS is a division of the Maryland State Department of Education,
which is an agency of the State of Maryland. Although a state may certainly waive sovereign
immunity, see, e.g., Garrett, 531 U.S. at 363-64, Maryland has not waived its immunity from
Title I ADA claims in federal court. McCray v. Maryland Dept. of Transp., Maryland Transit
Admin., 741 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2014). As Eleventh Amendment immunity applies
equally to bar Title V ADA claims, Mr. Tall’s ADA claims against DORS must be dismissed.
Sovereign immunity again applies to preclude Plaintiff’s claim of negligence against
DORS. Under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, Maryland has waived its sovereign immunity
for certain actions in state court. Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t §§ 12-101, et seq. Yet, this
waiver of sovereign immunity applies only to actions in state court. See, e.g., Smith v. Bernier,
701 F. Supp. 1171, 1174 (D. Md. 1988). As Maryland has not waived its Eleventh
Amendment immunity from negligence claims for money damages in federal court, Plaintiff’s
claim for negligence against DORS is also dismissed.
C. Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) – Both Defendants
Even if DORS were not entitled to sovereign immunity for Plaintiff’s ADA and
negligence claims, DORS contends that the doctrine of res judicata bars all claims asserted in
the subject Complaint.5 As Defendant PDG also argues for the application of res judicata, this
Court will consider their arguments together.

Alternatively, DORS argues that each count fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. As
Plaintiff’s claims are indeed barred by res judicata, this Court need not consider this alternative argument.
5

11

Res judicata, like collateral estoppel, is an affirmative defense for which the defendant
bears the burden of establishing. Theune v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. MJG-13-1015, 2013 WL
5934114, *3 (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th
Cir. 2007)). As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit explained,
It follows therefore, that a motion to dismiss filed under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests the sufficiency of
the complaint, generally cannot reach the merits of an
affirmative defense . . . . But in the relatively rare circumstances
where facts sufficient to rule on an affirmative defense are
alleged in the complaint, the defense may be reached by a
motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(6). This principle only
applies, however, if all facts necessary to the affirmative defense
appear on the face of the complaint.
Goodman, 494 F.3d at 464 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in
original).
Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, “bars a party from relitigating a claim that
was decided or could have been decided in an original suit,” Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v.
Wilson, 519 F.3d 156, 161 (4th Cir. 2008), and “bars a cause of action adjudicated between
the same parties or their privies in a prior case.” Jones v. SEC, 115 F.3d 1173, 1178 (4th Cir.
1997) (citation omitted). To assert a defense of res judicata, a defendant must establish: “(1) a
final judgment on the merits in a prior suit, (2) an identity of the cause of action in both the
earlier and later suit, and (3) and identity of parties or their privies in the two suits.” Id.
The subject Complaint is one such “relatively rare circumstance[]” where facts
sufficient to rule on an affirmative defense clearly appear on the face of the complaint. Each
of Plaintiff’s allegations was considered in depth and ultimately rejected by the Circuit Court

12

for Howard County, Maryland in a final judgment. A consideration of the affirmative
defense of res judicata is thus proper at this stage.
In this case, the present action involves the same parties, the same subject matter, and
the same arguments as were made by Mr. Tall in the Circuit Court for Howard County. In
that action, Mr. Tall named as defendants the “Maryland Division of Rehabilitative Services”
(i.e., DORS) and “Partnership Development Group”6 (i.e., PDG). See Def. DORS’s Mot. to
Dismiss Ex. 3. That action concerned the rejection of Mr. Tall’s application to participate in
the RISE program, the very transaction that gave rise to his present claims of discrimination
and negligence.
The sole point on which the Complaint in this case differs from the complaint in the
state court action is Plaintiff’s slight modification of the legal theories on which his claims
rest. For example, he asserted violations of Md. Code Ann., State Fin. & Proc. § 19-101 in
the state court action, but now asserts violations of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 and 42 U.S.C. §
12112. Yet, res judicata bars claims that were actually decided in a prior case, as well as claims
that could have been decided in that first case. Laurel Sand, 519 F.3d at 161. If a claim
“arise[s] out of a single nucleus of operative facts . . . [it] will be barred even if [it] involve[s]
different harms or different legal theories.” Reeves v. St. Mary’s County Comm’rs, 268 F. Supp.
2d 576, 584 (D. Md. 2003). From the face of the subject Complaint, it is clear that these
claims arise from the same discrimination underlying his other claims. Indeed, the allegations
of the present Complaint are nearly identical to those asserted in the state court complaint.

The proper name of “Partnership Development Group” is “The Partnership Development Group, Inc.,” as
noted by Defendant PDG. Mem. in Support of Def. PDG’s Mot. to Dismiss, 6 n.1, ECF No. 10-1.

6

13

Compare Compl. ¶¶ 6-35 with Def. DORS’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 3 ¶¶ 1-28. Mr. Tall’s suit in
state court was thus the proper forum to raise these claims.
In sum, the present action is nearly identical to a case dismissed on the merits by the
Circuit Court for Howard County. Under the principle of res judicata, such duplicative
litigation is impermissible. Accordingly, all claims are dismissed with prejudice as to both
Defendants.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue (ECF No. 6) is
DENIED as MOOT; Defendant Maryland State Department of Education, Division of
Rehabilitation Services’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED WITH
PREJUDICE; and Defendant The Partnership Development Group, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. In sum, Plaintiff’s claims
against DORS are barred by the sovereign immunity given to the states by the Eleventh
Amendment, U.S. Const. amend XI. Moreover, this case is nearly identical to an earlier state
action dismissed by the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland on October 15, 2015.
This case is thus also barred by res judicata and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all
Defendants.
A separate Order follows.
Dated: April 28, 2016

____/s/_________________________
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge

14