Robinson et al v. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 9/26/2016. (c/m 09/27/2016 jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
KATHERINE B. ROBINSON,
DANA B. WILLIAMS,
DEPT. of JUSTICE DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION, et aI.,
Civil Action No. PWG-16-3192
Plaintiff Katherine B. Robinson, a resident of Virginia, filed the above-captioned action
on September 6,2016, together with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos.
1, 2. Robinson subsequently exercised her right to amend her Complaint as a matter of course
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(l), adding the Virginia Employment Commission ("Commission") as
a Defendant. Am. CompI., ECF NO.5. Because she appears to be indigent, Plaintiff Robinson's
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis shall be granted. Co-plaintiff Dana B. Williams, who also
resides in Virginia, did not file a civil filing fee, nor did he complete a Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis. For reasons apparent herein, Dana Williams will not be required to correct this
deficiency, and instead shall be dismissed without prejudice from this case. I
asserts that during her employment
at the Department
of Justice Drug
Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), she was sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor,
Don Ellis, and that she reported this harassment to upper management and ultimately filed a
Katherine Robinson states that she has power of attorney to act on behalf of Dana Williams
because he "is working and job traveling." Am. Compi. 1. She provides no documents
demonstrating that she in fact is legally permitted to act on Dana Williams's behalf. In any
event, nothing in the pleadings suggests that Dana Williams is a party to her employment
discrimination claim against the DEA.
complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").
Am. CompI. ,-r,-r 1-
On June 3, 1998, Robinson was terminated from her job for insubordination
misconduct after 25 years of employment at the DEA. ld. ,-r 13. Her claim for unemployment
benefits was rejected.
ld.,-r 11. Robinson claims that her job termination and disqualification
from receiving unemployment
benefits led to her inability to maintain her Baltimore rental
property, which was placed in receivership and sold at public auction on February 18,2014.2
She seeks $100 million from her former employer and the Virginia Employment
Commission for the loss of income for wrongful job termination and damages incurred due to the
sale of the property. ld.,-r 18.
Robinson's instant lawsuit closely parallels two previous actions already adjudicated in
On June 6, 2013, Robinson filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County, Maryland against the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the DEA, solely
concerning her job termination.
See Complaint at 1, Robinson v. Dept. of Justice, et al., No.
(D. Md. July 3, 2013), ECF NO.2. On July 3,2013, the Defendants removed the
case to this Court. Notice of Removal 1, Robinson, No. RWT-13-1945 (D. Md. July 3, 2013).
The Court granted Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Robinson's Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure I2(b)(l),
I2(b)(5), and I2(b)(6).
Robinson, No. RWT-13-1945, 2014
WL 1255863, at *5 (D. Md. Mar. 25,2014).
On August 19, 2016, Robinson filed a Complaint against her former employer and the
Commission, the agency that rejected her unemployment
Robinson indicates she sued a bank and Baltimore City officials in separate actions regarding
the loss of her property. CompI. 1. Certiorari petitions are pending in those cases before the
United States Supreme Court. See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank
of Maryland, No. 15-9346 (S. Ct.); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Robinson v. Mayor of Balt.,
No. 16-M2 (S. Ct.). In any event, claims against these entities are not contained in the instant
Complaint at 2, Robinson, et al. v. Dept. of Justice Drug Enforcement Admin., et aI., No. GJH16-2931 (D. Md. Aug. 19,2016), ECF No. 1.
under the doctrine of res judicata.
That action was dismissed upon initial review
Order at 1, Robinson, No. GJH-16-2931 (D. Md. Sept. 6,
2016), ECF NO.7.
Robinson's claims are identical to those raised in No. GJH-16-2931.
Where there has
been "( 1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior 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,"
res judicata is established. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Beverley, 404 F. 3d 243, 248 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Meekins v. United Transp. Union, 946 F2.d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir. 1991)). The
doctrine of res judicata "precludes the assertion of a claim after a judgment on the merits in a
prior suit by the same parties on the same cause of action."
Meekins, 946 F. 2d at 1057. In
addition, "[nJot only does res judicata bar claims that were raised and fully litigated, it prevents
litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available to the parties,
regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding."
Peugeot Motors of America, Inc. v. E. Auto Distribs., Inc., 892 F. 2d 355, 359 (4th Cir. 1989)).
claims against the DEA and the Commission
were fully and finally
Paul . Grimm
United States District Judge
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?