Lyons v. Pacific County Clerk and Administrator et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 26 Plaintiff's Motion for the Denial of the Letter of July 14, 2011; granting 29 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Plaintiff's claims against Doumit (ONLY) are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 9/21/2017 (DN). (cc to pltf)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

CASE NO. C17-5335RBL

BILLY LYONS,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11

ORDER

v.
PACIFIC COUNTY CLERK AND
ADMINISTRATOR,

12
Defendant.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Doumit’s Motion to Dismiss on res
judicata grounds, and on Plaintiff Lyons’s “Motion the Denial of the Letter of July 14, 2011 falls
under fraud aa law – RCW 4.12.040/Wash App. Div. 3 2007 the Nine Fraud Element.” [Dkt.
#26].
The Court has outlined in a prior Order [Dkt. #18] that this is at least the second case
Lyons has filed in the wake of his unsuccessful and un-appealed 2102 state court trial. See Lyons
v. Blauvet et al., Cause No. CV16-5256RBL. His claims against his former attorney, Thomas
Doumit, in the first case were dismissed with prejudice. Undeterred, Lyons filed this second

22
23
24

ORDER - 1

1

case, asserting the same claims against Doumit and others. The Court previously dismissed with

2

prejudice Lyons claims against Pacific County and Dana Williams (another of Lyons’s former

3

attorneys), because the claims were identical to the claims asserted in the prior case. [Dkt. #18].

4

Doumit now seeks dismissal on the same basis—the prior dismissal of these claims with

5
6

prejudice bars these identical claims:
Under res judicata, “a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or

7

their privies from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Allen v.

8

McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). The doctrine of res judicata bars a party from re-filing a case

9

where three elements are met: (1) identity of claims; (2) final judgment on the merits; and (3)

10

identity or privity between parties. Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845, 850, n. 4 (9th

11

Cir. 2000); Thompson v. King Co., 163 Wash. App. 184 (2011).

12

This claim is literally a repeat of Lyons’s prior claim. His response, like his pending

13

motion and his prior filings, is incomprehensible. It does not begin to articulate a reason why this

14

claims is not facially and fatally barred by res judicata.

15

The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and all of Lyons’s claims against Doumit are

16

DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. Lyons’s own Motion is Denied, and

17

Lyons is again referred to the Court’s prior Order on this subject, which included the following:

18

20

FAIR WARNING: if Lyons re-files any case based on the events outlined in this
or the prior case(s), the Court will entertain a motion for attorneys’ fees based on
Lyons’ repeated, vexatious and frivolous filings. It will also permit and encourage
the defendants to “get to the bottom” of the authenticity of letter described above,
//

21

//

22

//

23

//

19

24

ORDER - 2

1

and the full range of possible consequences for submitting falsified evidence will
be in play.

2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Dated this 21st day of September, 2017.
4

A

5

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 3