Reynolds v. U.S. Department of Justice et al
Filing
60
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 10/8/2015. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 10/9/15)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
v.
* Civil Action No. RWT-14-427
*
*
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., *
*
Defendants.
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GARY I. REYNOLDS, M.D.,
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
[ECF No. 56], which, if granted, would be the Fifth Amended Complaint [ECF No. 56-2]. After
considering the motion and Defense opposition, this Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion
because it seeks to reintroduce claims barred by res judicata and add factual information
primarily relevant to those barred claims.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s complaint stems from his work as a medical officer for the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP), his termination from that position, and the BOP’s subsequent reporting of Plaintiff’s
conduct to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). ECF No. 46, at 1. The majority of the
relevant background has been recounted in the memorandum opinion filed January 21, 2014 by
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Id., at 1–6. In that opinion, the
court dismissed all but three claims as being barred by res judicata or for failing to state a claim.1
The court then transferred the remaining claims to this Court, finding that Plaintiff’s claim under
the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) was improperly before it. Id. at 16. The two other
1
Specifically, Counts One, Two, Five, Six and Seven were barred by res judicata. ECF No. 46, at 8. The court
dismissed Count Nine, the Title VII Retaliation Claim, for failing to state a plausible claim. Id. at 13–14.
remaining claims—that the BOP violated the FOIA and the Privacy Act—accompanied the Little
Tucker Act claim to this Court.2
II.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint under FRCP 15 (a)(2), which permits a party to
amend a pleading before trial with the court’s leave. “[L]eave to amend a pleading should be
denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad
faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.” Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir.1999).
A futile amendment would include one that seeks to reintroduce claims already barred by
res judicata. See Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 485 (1982) (“In our
system of jurisprudence the usual rule is that merits of a legal claim once decided in a court of
competent jurisdiction are not subject to redetermination in another forum.”); Davis v. Piper
Aircraft Corp., 615 F. 2d 606, 613 (1980) (stating that “substantive or procedural considerations”
can make an amendment futile); Jones v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 444 F. App’x 640, 645
(4th Cir. 2011) (holding that claim preclusion rendered an amendment futile). “[T]he essential
elements of [res judicata] are generally stated to be (1) a final judgment on the merits in an
earlier suit, (2) an identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and the later suit, and (3) an
identity of parties or their privies in the two suits.” Nash Cnty. Bd. of Ed. v. Biltmore Co.,
640 F.2d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 1981).
Applying these elements in the instant case, it is clear that allowing Plaintiff’s proposed
amended complaint would be futile because the amended complaint seeks to reintroduce claims
barred by res judicata. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff has included as Counts Three, Five,
2
Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case in the District of Columbia, which that court denied on May 15, 2015.
D.D.C. ECF No. 52.
2
and Six his former Counts One, Seven and Nine, respectively. Compare ECF No. 46, at 5–6
(reciting the causes of action in the Fourth Amended Complaint), with ECF. No. 56-2, at 23, 26,
29 (proposed Fifth Amended Complaint). The United States District Court for the District of
Columbia issued a final judgment on these claims. The identity of the claims and the parties are
identical in the proposed Fifth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff argues in his reply that these
claims are not barred because they are based on new information questioning “the authenticity of
the documents which formed the basis for plaintiff’s removal and corrected NPDB report.”
ECF No. 59, at 6. Plaintiff misapplies the law. The issue is not whether Plaintiff has new
support for his claims, but rather whether Plaintiff’s claims were adjudicated on the merits,
which they were.
Plaintiff may move to amend his complaint to add facts relevant to the surviving claims,
if he so chooses. Plaintiff is reminded that Local Rule 103.6(c) requires that parties seeking to
amend “shall file and serve (1) a clean copy of the amended pleading and (2) a copy of the
amended pleading in which stricken material has been lined through or enclosed in brackets and
new material has been underlined or set forth in bold-faced type.”
Because Plaintiff’s proposed Fifth Amended Complaint consists primarily of barred
claims and facts related to those claims, his Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is
denied. A separate Order follows.
Date: October 8, 2015
/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?