Opinion
Civil Action No. 10 1343.
August 4, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff's application and dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata.
Under the principle of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits in one action "bars any further claim based on the same `nucleus of facts'. . . ." Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Expert Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). Res judicata bars the relitigation "of issues that were or could have been raised in [the prior] action." Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)); see I.A.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"). Moreover, res judicata applies to dismissals for lack of jurisdiction. See GAF Corp. v. U.S., 818 F.2d 901, 912 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (explaining that "[t]he judgment ordering dismissal [has] preclusive effect as to matters actually adjudicated[, e.g.,] the precise issue of jurisdiction that led to the initial dismissal); accord Dozier v. Ford Motor Co., 702 F.2d 1189, 1191-92 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
This is the third time that plaintiff has filed this action, over which the Court recently determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Beavers v. Watters, Civ. Action No. 10-1120 (D.D.C., June 30, 2010). Because the current complaint does not cure the jurisdictional defect, it, too, will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.