Hughley v. United States Of America
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: This action, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1), is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii). The Court certifies, pursuant to 2 8 U. S.C. § 1915 (a) (3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 12/2/2011) (ft)
USDCSDNY
DOCUMFNT
Ey Er"'P'" r, 'I.: r
..... l...- : K \.. h.,;�C/u LY Fll..ED
DOC#:
"
..
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT
OF
NEW YORK
---- --- --------- - ----------
•
--------
DATE FI:-:LE=n:
x
� �).7:lD tJ/ -r-�
/
l
BOBBY HUGHLEY,
Petitioner,
11 Civ. 3805
-against-
(JFK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
------ ----- ------- -------- --- ------
JOHN
F.
KEENAN,
x
United States District
By Order dated August 18,
petitioner Bobby Hughley
2011,
Judge:
the Court directed pro se
(" Petitioner"),
to amend a submission
that the Court had construed as a petition for a writ of error
coram nobis,
within sixty days of the date of that Order.
The
Court also dismissed Petitioner's claims for damages against the
United States.
At that time,
the Court understood that the
principal relief sought by Petitioner was the setting aside of
his conviction in United States v.
(JFK).
On October 17,
Complaint.1
2011,
Hughley,
No.
98 Cr.
695
Petitioner filed an Amended
In his Amended Complaint,
Petitioner does not seek
to have the conviction mentioned above set aside.
Rather,
he
seeks principally to challenge the Judgment of the Court with
regard to an employment discrimination action he filed on
1
The Court interprets the Respondent named in the Amended
Complaint, "United State American, See Attached Complaint 86 CV
8487, " to be the United States of America.
November 5,
Civ. 8487
19 86.
(SWK).
Hughley v. United States Postal Serv.,
For the following reasons,
No. 86
this action is
dismissed.
I.
In his prior suit,
Background
Petitioner raised claims under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973,
alleging that he was dismissed from the United States
Postal Service
(the "Postal Service" ) due to discrimination and,
while employed there,
was denied the use of a medically
necessary orthopedic chair.
March 5,
1992,
By its Memorandum and Order dated
the Court granted the Postal Service's motion to
dismiss that action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
Hughley,
1992),
No. 86 Civ. 84 87
(SWK),
1992 WL 51495
(S. D.N.Y. Mar. 5,
and a judgment of dismissal was entered on March 1 8,
(the "March 1992 Judgment" ).
Petitioner appealed,
1992
and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the dismissal.
993 F. 2d 1532
See Hughley v. the Postal Service,
(2d Cir.
1993)
No. 92-613 8,
(unpublished table decision).
In his Amended Complaint,
Petitioner again raises claims of
discrimination in regard to his employment and the termination
of his employment with the Postal Service.
Petitioner also
requests the disclosure of certain documents by the Postal
-2-
Service pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act
U.S.C.
§
("FOIAH),
5
552.
II.
Legal
Standard
The Court is required to dismiss any in forma pauperis
complaint,
or portion thereof,
malicious claim,
granted,
that states a frivolous or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
2 8 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B).
authorizes dismissal on any of these grounds,
While the law
federal courts
"remain obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally. H
Harris v. Mills,
v.
Pardus,
572 F.3d 66,
551 U.S. 89
72
(2007)).
(2d Cir. 2009)
Thus,
be read with "special solicitudeH
raise the "strongest
Fed.
[claims]
Bureau of Prisons,
(citing Erickson
pro se complaints should
and should be interpreted to
that they suggest.H Triestman v.
470 F.3d 471,
475-76
(2d Cir. 2006)
(quotations omitted) .
III.
A.
Preclusive Effect
Discussion
of the March
Under federal common law,
1992
Judgment
two complementary doctrines
define the preclusive effect of federal court judgments:
preclusion and issue preclusion. Taylor v. Sturgell,
8 80,
892
U.S. 497,
(200 8);
508
Semtek Int'l Inc.
(2001).
claim
553 U.S.
v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
The form of preclusion relevant here--
-3-
531
issue preclusion--bars the relitigation "of an issue of fact or
law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court
determination essential to the prior judgment."
u.s.
at 892
(200 1)) .
(quoting New Hampshire v.
Maine,
Sturgell, 553
532 U.S.
742,
748
In keeping with the fundamental principles of fairness
and due process, issue preclusion applies only against a party
to the prior litigation. See Montana v.
147,
153
United States, 440 U. S.
(1979).
In pursuing the instant action, Petitioner's express
purpose is to revive a prior action that was dismissed because
one of his claims was deemed moot and the others could not be
maintained in light of Petitioner's failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Hughley,
1992 WL 51495,
at *5.
The
Amended Complaint contains numerous references to the prior
action.
In fact, the "Statement of Claim," "Injuries," and
"Remedies" sections of the Amended Complaint consist solely of
references to the docket number of the prior action.
The March
1992 Judgment precludes any relitigation of the threshold issues
of justiciability and sub ject matter jurisdiction previously
determined by the Court, and these jurisdictional defects bar
Petitioner's claims in the Amended Complaint.
Therefore, to the
extent Petitioner claims he was sub jected to racial
discrimination or unfair deprivation of the use of medical
-4-
equipment
while he was employed by the
1992
Judgment
requires dismissal
B.
Postal Service,
the March
FOIA Request
in the Amended Complaint--Petitioner's
One claim included
FOIA
request--is not barred
nonetheless suffers from
to
compel
FOIA
a federal
by the March
agency
See 5 u. S. c.
indicated that
the
to
comply
with
defect.
FOIA
One seeking
must first make a
and receive an unsatisfactory
552 (a) (4) (B).
As
Peti tioner has not
Postal Service or any of its employees
improperly denied him
requested,
§§
1992 Judgment but
a fatal procedural
request with that agency
response.
of this action.
access to the information he has
this claim must also be denied.
IV.
This action,
Conclusion
filed in forma pauperis under 28
§
1915(a) (1),
§
1915(e)(2) (B) (ii) .
U.S.C.
is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to
-5-
28
U.S.C.
The Court certifies,
pursuant to 2 8 U. S.C. §
1915 (a) (3),
that any appeal from
this Order would not be taken in good
faith,
in forma p aup er is status is denied
and therefore
purpose of
438,
an appeal.
444-45
See Coppedge
v.
United States,
369
for the
U.S.
(1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York,
New York
December 1.-
,
2011
�� �H�
United States District Judge
-6-
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?