Davis v. Boeing Company et al

Filing 4

Order of Dismissal: This action is dismissed. (Related Doc. No. 1 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 4/10/2017. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

PRENTISS B. DAVIS,

PLAINTIFF,
vs.
BOEING COMPANY, et al,

DEFENDANTS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:17cv274

JUDGE SARA LIOI

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the Court is the complaint of pro se plaintiff Prentiss B. Davis against his former
employer, defendant Boeing Company. Plaintiff alleges that in February 2007, he fractured his
back in a Boeing turnstile, causing permanent injury. He further alleges he has litigated this
matter extensively in State of Washington courts and in the Federal Court of Claims, who are
also defendants in this action. Plaintiff appears to assert that his employee classification at
Boeing and his workers’ compensation claim were improperly adjudicated by these courts. He
seeks $32,000,000.00 in damages.
Plaintiff asks the Court to conduct an appellate review of the decisions of the State of
Washington courts and the Federal Court of Claims in his cases, with which he disagrees. There
is simply no jurisdictional basis for this Court to provide such review. Moreover, to the extent
plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate the claims he unsuccessfully pursued in the State of
Washington courts and the Federal Court of Claims, those claims are barred by the doctrine of
res judicata. See Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 n.6, 102 S. Ct. 1883, 72 L.
Ed. 2d 262 (1982) (a final judgment on the merits of an action bars re-litigation between the

parties or their privies on issues that were or could have been raised in that action); W.J. O’Neil
Co. v. Shepley, Bullfinch, Richardson & Abbott, Inc., 765 F.3d 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2014) (same)
(citation omitted). Finally, there are no allegations in the complaint reasonably suggesting
plaintiff might have any arguable and timely claims for relief against defendant Boeing
Company or the courts. See Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (complaint is
subject to summary dismissal when claim is not arguably plausible) (citations omitted).
Based on the foregoing, this action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2017
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2