Everson v. Armstrong
697 F. App'x 66
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Everson, proceeding pro se, filed a § 1983 suit challenging his 2001 firing; he previously brought a 2004 § 1983 action resolved by summary judgment for defendants in 2009.
- Everson sued John Armstrong and Scott Semple in the current action; Semple is sued in both official and individual capacities.
- The district court sua sponte dismissed the current complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), concluding claim preclusion and other defects warranted dismissal.
- The Second Circuit reviews such dismissals de novo and considered whether the present claims were barred by the 2009 adjudication on the merits.
- The court also evaluated whether claims against Semple survived either privity-based preclusion or the statute of limitations and whether Everson alleged Semple’s personal involvement.
- Everson additionally sought mandamus relief directing the district court to revisit the 2009 summary judgment; the Second Circuit denied that request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim preclusion (res judicata) | Everson sought to relitigate § 1983 claims based on the same 2001 firing | Prior 2004 action was adjudicated on the merits (summary judgment), involving same parties/privity and claims | Claims are precluded; dismissal affirmed |
| Suit against Semple (privity/identity) | Semple now sued individually and officially; claim should proceed | Semple is in privity with prior defendants or, alternatively, claim is time-barred and lacks personal-involvement facts | Even if privity questionable, claim against Semple is time-barred and fails for lack of alleged personal involvement; dismissed |
| Personal involvement standard for § 1983 damages | Everson alleges Semple liable in individual capacity | Recovery requires factual allegations showing defendant’s personal involvement | Everson did not plead facts to infer Semple’s personal involvement; claim fails |
| Mandamus request to revisit 2009 summary judgment | Everson asked this Court to direct district court to reconsider its 2009 ruling | Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal; Everson already had appeal opportunity | Mandamus denied; regular appeals process controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2001) (standard of review for sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2))
- Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corr., 214 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2000) (elements of claim preclusion explained)
- Beck v. Levering, 947 F.2d 639 (2d Cir. 1991) (prior judgment on the merits precludes relitigation)
- Lounsbury v. Jeffries, 25 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1994) (discussing timeliness of § 1983 claims)
- K & A Radiologic Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Health of State of N.Y., 189 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 1999) (personal involvement required for § 1983 damages)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (mandamus cannot replace the ordinary appeals process)