Bailey v. Kay ( 2009 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 102009
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON CLERk
U.S. DISTPIteT COURT'
COURTNEY ANTHONY BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 09 0255
ALAN KAY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in
forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application, and will dismiss the
complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that, after charges against him were dismissed by the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia on February 17, 2005, he was detained at the D.C. Jail "for a period of
72 hours so that the State of Maryland could obtain custody of Plaintiff' pursuant to an
outstanding warrant. Compi. at 3. He further alleges that, during this 72-hour period, Deputy
United States Marshals "executed a federal arrest warrant over Plaintiffs person," and thereafter
Plaintiff appeared before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Id. It appears that Magistrate Judge Kay
held Plaintiff without bond and signed an Order committing him to the District of Maryland. !d.
at 3-4 & Ex. D (Commitment to Another District, Case No. 05-086M-01). In the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, Plaintiff pled guilty to one count of possession with
intent to distribute controlled substances, and Plaintiff now faces removal from the United States
pursuant to the January 31, 2008 Order of a United States Immigration Judge. Id. & Ex. H
(excerpt from Order of Deportation). In this action, Plaintiff challenges the validity Magistrate
Judge Kay's Orders and demands injunctive relief such that Magistrate Judge Kay "take such
affirmative steps as may be necessary to remedy the past unlawful conduct," and that "all federal
agencies are enjoined "from enforcing or executing any judgment, order, decree, detainer, or rule
which stems from [Magistrate Judge] Kay's void orders." CompI. at 12.
Generally, a plaintiff is expected to "present in one suit all the claims for relief that he
may have arising out of the same transaction or occurrence." Us. Indus., Inc. v. Blake Const.
Co., Inc., 765 F.2d 195, 205 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). Under the doctrine of res
judicata, a prior judgment on the merits of a plaintiff s claim bars the relitigation of the claim
and any other claims that could have been submitted to the Court. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S.
90,94 (1980) (res judicata bars not only those issues that were previously litigated, but also
those that could have been but were not raised); IA.M Nat'l Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg.
Co., 723 F.2d 944,949 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that res judicata "forecloses all that which might
have been litigated previously"); Flynn v. 3900 Watson Place, Inc., 63 F. Supp. 2d 18,22
(D.D.C. 1999) (quoting Shin v. Portals Confederation Corp., 728 A.2d 615,618 (D.C. 1999)).
Here, review of this Court's docket shows that plaintiff either has raised or has had an
opportunity to raise the claims set forth in the instant complaint. See Bailey v. Kay, No. 08-0369,
2008 WL 576781, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 29, 2008) (Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing
complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.c. § 1915A(b)(2)), aff'd, No. 08-5066,2008 WL
4552141 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 10,2008) (per curiam). It is clear that Plaintiff had a prior opportunity
to seek injunctive relief, and, instead, sought only monetary damages from a defendant who is
immune from such a lawsuit. See, e.g., Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991); Forrester v. White,
484 U.S. 219 (1988). The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs claims are barred under the
doctrine of res judicata. See, e.g., Bodnar v. Chidester, No. 3:07 CV 0248, 2007 WL 1667948,
at * (N.D. Ind. June 7, 2007) (concluding that prior dismissal with prejudice of claims against a
state court judge barred subsequent claims against the same judge). Accordingly, the Court will
dismiss this action with prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum is issued
separately on this same date.
Date: ~ . ;tg I tlDD 9