Gregory Redmond v. Four Season Hotel ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • HLD-001 (October 2010)                                          NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                     ___________
    
                                         No. 10-2605
                                         ___________
    
                                  GREGORY T. REDMOND,
                                              Appellant
                                           v.
    
                                  FOUR SEASON HOTEL
                          ____________________________________
    
                        On Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                                 (D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-02311)
                         District Judge: Honorable Norma L. Shapiro
                         ____________________________________
    
            Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
            or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                      October 29, 2010
             Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges
    
                               (Opinion filed: February 14, 2011)
                                           _________
    
                                           OPINION
                                           _________
    
    PER CURIAM.
    
                 In May 2010, Gregory T. Redmond commenced this action by filing a pro
    
    se complaint against the Four Seasons Hotel in Philadelphia, claiming that, on March 3,
    
    2006, a security guard prevented Redmond from entering the hotel lobby because of his
    
    race. Redmond sought damages for an alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982.
    The District Court granted in forma pauperis status and dismissed the complaint sua
    
    sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), noting that the suit is barred under the doctrine
    
    of res judicata and also time-barred under the statute of limitations. Redmond appeals.
    
                  We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary.
    
    Allah v. Seiverling, 
    229 F.3d 220
    , 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We must dismiss an in forma
    
    pauperis appeal if we determine that it is “frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. §
    
    1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see Neitzke v. Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
    , 324-25 (1989).
    
                  The District Court correctly concluded that this suit is barred. Redmond
    
    raised precisely the same allegation against the Four Seasons Hotel in a prior suit, which
    
    the District Court dismissed on the merits. See E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 09-cv-05698. In
    
    addition, the District Court denied Redmond’s motion for reconsideration in the prior suit
    
    and expressly rejected the merits of his claims under §§ 1981 and 1982 for failure to state
    
    a claim upon which relief can be granted. Given the prior dismissal on the merits, the
    
    doctrine of res judicata bars Redmond “from initiating a second suit against the same
    
    adversary based on the same ‘cause of action’ as the first suit.” Duhaney v. Att’y Gen., --
    
    - F.3d ---, 
    2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19131
    , at *16 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2010). In addition, as
    
    fully explained by the District Court, Redmond’s claims are plainly time-barred under the
    
    statute of limitations. Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
    
    
    
    
                                                 2
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: 10-2605

Filed Date: 2/14/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014