Albert Burgess, Jr. v. eBay
706 F. App'x 57
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Burgess, acting pro se, appealed a Delaware District Court dismissal of his 2017 complaint against Ebay and PayPal.
- Burgess was convicted in 2009 for two felonies involving receipt/possession of materials depicting minors; sentenced to 292 months plus life supervised release.
- Burgess alleged Ebay/PayPal aided law enforcement and shared information leading to his prosecution after he closed accounts.
- District Court dismissed the complaint as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding statutes of limitations and res judicata barred relief.
- Burgess sought reconsideration, which the District Court denied; he appeals those rulings.
- Court assesses claim preclusion to determine whether Burgess’ later suit is barred by prior identical suits against the same defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim preclusion bars Burgess’s suit | Burgess argues the claims merit reexamination despite prior dismissals. | Ebay/PayPal contend prior final judgments preclude new actions on the same claims. | Yes; claim preclusion bars suit. |
| Whether prior dismissals constitute final judgments on the merits | Burgess maintains the prior dismissals do not foreclose this action. | Defendants argue earlier dismissals were on the merits and thus preclusive. | Yes; prior dismissals were judgments on the merits for claim preclusion purposes. |
| Whether amendment would be futile and leave to amend should be denied | Burgess seeks an opportunity to amend his pleadings. | Defendants argue amendment would be futile given preclusion and time bars. | Amendment would be futile; district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave. |
| Whether the statute of limitations barred the action | Burgess asserts the action should proceed despite time limits. | Defendants contend statute of limitations bars the claim. | Resolved in favor of preclusion; no need to reach limitations analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Covington Twp., 648 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2011) (claim preclusion framework in third circuit appeals)
- In re Mullarkey, 536 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2008) (three-factor test for claim preclusion applicability)
- Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009) (analysis of identical acts and material facts for res judicata)
- Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) (dismissal for failure to state a claim can have claim preclusion effect)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (leave to amend not required where futile)
- Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (1st Cir. 1999) (reconsideration standard including need to correct clear error or prevent injustice)