66 F. Supp. 3d 178
D.D.C.2014Background
- Gresham is a long-time MPD officer facing claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment against the District of Columbia.
- Gresham previously pursued three related suits (2008–2009) arising from similar core facts about discipline, retaliation, and whistleblower activity.
- The related actions included Gresham v. Lanier (08-1117), a dismissal based on service, and Gresham v. District of Columbia (09-0029), which involved First Amendment retaliation and related claims.
- Hoffman v. Lanier (08-1924) involved a raid on Gresham’s property and broader District/DEA conduct; this case was resolved with a dismissal on the merits for many claims against the District.
- In the present action (filed 2011; amended 2011), Gresham asserts Title VII, §1981, and §1983 claims plus equitable relief against the District, based on similar events from 2007–2012.
- The District moved for summary judgment arguing res judicata bars the current suit; the court granted summary judgment on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the current action is barred by res judicata. | Gresham argues the Title VII claims were not raised previously and could be pursued. | District contends prior final judgments on the merits bar all claims arising from the same nucleus of facts. | Yes; the action is barred by res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capitol Hill Group v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman LLC, 569 F.3d 485 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (defines identity of claims under res judicata by same nucleus of facts)
- Miller v. Saxbe, 396 F. Supp. 1260 (D.D.C. 1975) (dismissal on merits for res judicata purposes where merits adjudicated)
- NRDC v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (preclusion under res judicata for matters that could have been raised)
- Trimble v. District of Columbia, 779 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2011) (consolidates capture of merits-based dismissal in res judicata analysis)
- Blue v. District of Columbia, 850 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2012) (conceded dismissals treated as merits judgments for res judicata)
- Sae Young Kim v. National Certification Commission for Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine, 888 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2012) (concedes res judicata effect of conceded dismissal)
- Ponder v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 865 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2012) (addresses preclusion when prior actions exist and new suit rests on same facts)
- Gresham v. District of Columbia, not applicable (cited for res judicata framework) (—) (used to illustrate privity and identity analysis in this case)