Kenneth D. Humphrey v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 681 F. App'x 797

Kenneth Humphrey, a federal employee, sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleging Title VII, ADEA, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claims based on a November 2008 workplace dispute; district court in earlier case (Humphrey I) granted summary judgment for DHS.
Humphrey filed a second suit reasserting the same Title VII, ADEA, and § 1985 claims and adding Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims against DHS and officials (named in official capacity).
DHS moved to dismiss the second suit on res judicata grounds and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to the new constitutional claims; district court granted dismissal on both grounds.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo both the res judicata and subject-matter-jurisdiction determinations and affirmed the dismissal.
Court held the new suit arose from the same ‘‘nucleus of operative fact’’ as Humphrey I, so all claims that were or could have been raised previously are barred by res judicata.
The Fourteenth Amendment claim failed because it alleged only federal action; the Fifth Amendment damages claim was barred by sovereign immunity and equitable relief was precluded by the CSRA; ultra vires/official-capacity arguments did not overcome sovereign immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars the second suit	Humphrey contended new constitutional claims are distinct and not previously litigated	DHS argued the second suit arises from the same operative facts and thus is precluded	Res judicata bars all claims that were or could have been raised in Humphrey I
Whether Fourteenth Amendment claim is viable against DHS	Humphrey asserted due-process violation under 14th Amendment	DHS argued 14th Amendment applies only to state action, not federal agencies	14th Amendment claim dismissed for lack of state action
Whether Fifth Amendment claims can proceed (damages)	Humphrey sought damages against DHS for federal due-process violations	DHS asserted sovereign immunity bars damages absent a waiver	Damages barred by sovereign immunity; no waiver shown
Whether equitable relief for Fifth Amendment claim is available outside CSRA	Humphrey sought equitable relief for constitutional harms	DHS argued CSRA provides exclusive remedial framework for federal personnel actions	Equitable relief precluded by CSRA; district court lacks jurisdiction

Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 1999) (res judicata elements; same nucleus of operative fact test)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity suits are suits against the entity)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (Fourteenth Amendment requires state action)
Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
JBP Acquisitions, LP v. U.S. ex rel. F.D.I.C., 224 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2000) (sovereign immunity bars suits absent waiver)
Lee v. Hughes, 145 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 1998) (CSRA provides exclusive remedy for federal employment adverse actions)
Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963) (ultra vires suits may lie against officers in individual capacity, not against the sovereign)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (individual-capacity damages action for constitutional violations)
F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (Bivens remedies do not extend to official-capacity suits against federal agencies)
Griswold v. Cty. of Hillsborough, 598 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2010) (rejecting a ‘‘manifest injustice’’ exception to res judicata)
Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) (res judicata is a salutary principle barring relitigation)
Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005) (subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)