Maldonado-Arce v. State of New York Worker's Compensation Board et al

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the present action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Salvador E Casellas on 2/25/2009.(THD) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/25/2009: # 1 order) (su).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO E D G A R D O MALDONADO-ARCE, P l a in tif f v. C IV I L NO. 09-1174 (SEC) W O R K E R 'S COMPENSATION BOARD, et a l., D e f en d a n ts

O P I N I O N AND ORDER

B e f o re this Court is a motion (Docket # 1) filed by Plaintiff, Edgardo Maldonado-Arce (h e re in a f te r "Maldonado"), praying to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. S e c tio n 1915(a). The motion is accompanied by the instant Complaint (Docket # No. 2), dated F e b ru a ry 20, 2009. T h e highly confusing pleadings made in this case suggest that it is a diversity action a g a i n s t the State of New York Workers Compensation Board. Plaintiff alleges that for the last 1 0 years he has been entitled to payments from the Workers Compensation board, but that said a g e n cy has not fulfilled its legal obligations to him. See Docket # 2. It appears from the face o f the complaint that the alleged accident, and worker's compensation claim in question, o c c u rre d in Buffalo, New York. As such, the proper venue for the case is the United States D is tric t Court for the Western District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b). Therefore, th is Court has the jurisdiction to dismiss this case without prejudice on venue grounds. 28 U .S .C . Section 1406(a).

CIVIL NO. 09-1174

-2-

H o w e v e r, a nearly identical claim also filed by Plaintiff was recently dismissed with p re ju d ic e for presenting an ". . . undisputedly meritless legal theory." W o rk e r's Compensation Board, No. 09-1095 (D.P.R. Feb. Maldonado-Arce v. 12, 2009)(citing

G o n z á le z -G o n z á le z v. U.S.A., 257 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2001)). There the court based its decision o n 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which allows for a case litigated in forma pauperis to be dismissed at a n y time "if satisfied that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief m a y be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." S e e Maldonado-Arce, No. 09-1095 at 1. Accordingly, there is basis for dismissal if the claim p ro f f e rs an indisputably meritless legal theory that lacks a basis in the law. Neitzke v. W illiam s, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). This Court understands that the present action presents in c o m p re h e n s ib le and frivolous allegations. Maldondado's claim is as follows: I = Edgardo Maldonado-Arce are requesting a hearing by jury because I have b e e n waiting for 10 years without a compensation money that I am entitle and the B o ard do not give you in off legal advice and they are not in the injurys worker's s id e . Plaintiff clearly fails to state a cogent legal theory, and also virtually repeats the allegations in c lu d e d in his prior action. Because of the similarity between this and Maldonado's prior action, an examination o f the doctrine of res judicata is merited. When the judgment for a prior case is "entered by a f e d er a l court exercising federal question jurisdiction, the applicability of res judicata and c o lla te ra l estoppel is a matter of federal law." See Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc. v. El Dia, Inc.,

CIVIL NO. 09-1174

-3-

4 9 0 F.3d 86, 89 (1 st Cir.2007). The requirements for federal res judicata in the First Circuit a re : (1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier proceeding, (2) sufficient id e n t i c a lity between the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later suits, a n d (3) sufficient identicality between the parties in the two actions. B re n e m a n v. U.S. ex rel. F.A.A., 381 F.3d 33 (1 st Cir. 2004)(citing Banco Santander de P.R. v . Lopez-Stubbe(In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp.), 324 F.3d 12, 15 (1 st Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) (in t e rn a l quotation marks omitted). Maldonado's previous federal case, dismissed less th a n a week before the filing of this action, against the New York State Worker's c o m p e n s a tio n board was dismissed due to its sparsity of details and the absence of any co g n iz ab le theory for recovery. The issues and parties raised in the present complaint are id e n tic a l to said action, where final judgment with prejudice was entered on February 13, 2009. S e e Maldonado-Arce, No. 09-1095 (Docket # 8). As such, dismissal on res judicata grounds is appropriate. After an examination of the Compliant (Docket # 2), and the applicable legal standards, th is Court holds that Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous under the standard set forth above, filed in an improper venue, and also precluded by res judicata. The complaint is hereby D IS M I S S E D WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is D E N I E D and he is ORDERED to pay all costs associated with this action. Judgment shall be e n te re d accordingly. S O ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 25 th day of February, 2009.

CIVIL NO. 09-1174

-4-

S / S a lv a d o r E. Casellas SALVADOR E. CASELLAS U .S . SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE