319 F. Supp. 3d 52
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Edward Richardson, a former Board of Governors (Federal Reserve) LEU employee, sued 11 current/former Board employees under Bivens claiming constitutional torts related to personnel files, phone records, discipline, retaliation, and handling of EEO complaints following his June 2010 termination.
- Seven defendants (Sauls, Pleasant, Dublin, Jones, May, Bakale, Coble) were defendants in an earlier related suit (Richardson I) that pleaded overlapping facts and was dismissed as to Bivens claims as time-barred.
- Richardson III (the instant suit) asserts eleven counts: Counts 1–8 repeat allegations tied to removal of medical records, access/release of phone records, improper searches of personnel/EEO files, retaliation, and fabricated investigations; Counts 9–10 allege conspiratorial denial of his termination appeal and disparate treatment; Count 11 alleges an EEO specialist (Smith) mishandled a 2016 administrative complaint.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, invoking res judicata/collateral estoppel (claim/issue preclusion), statute-of-limitations (Bivens claims), and qualified immunity.
- The Court concluded Counts 1–8 overlap with or could have been raised in Richardson I and are barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel; Counts 9–10 are time‑barred; Count 11 fails to plead a plausible constitutional violation and is dismissed on qualified immunity grounds (without prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata / collateral estoppel for Counts 1–8 | Richardson contends he did not plead Bivens claims previously and may press constitutional theories now | Defendants: same nucleus of facts were litigated (or could have been) in Richardson I, so claim/issue preclusion applies | Court: Counts 1–8 (with limited exceptions for newly added defendants) are barred and dismissed with prejudice |
| Scope of "same nucleus of facts" | Richardson: new legal theories are distinct | Defendants: preclusion bars new theories based on same facts | Court: legal theory change does not overcome res judicata when facts overlap; dismissal affirmed |
| Timeliness of Counts 9–10 (Bivens SOL) | Richardson asserts later discovery/tolling of facts | Defendants: D.C. § 12‑301 three‑year analogue applies; acts occurred in 2010, outside limitations | Court: Counts 9–10 untimely and dismissed with prejudice |
| Qualified immunity and Count 11 (EEO handling) | Richardson: Smith's denial of counseling and routing of complaint violated speech and due process rights | Defendants: administrative handling of EEO claims is regulated and not a constitutional violation; Smith followed regs and is entitled to immunity | Court: Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a clearly established constitutional right; Smith entitled to qualified immunity; Count 11 dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing Bivens cause of action against federal officers)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity prongs and sequencing)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (clarity requirement for clearly established right in qualified immunity analysis)
- Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186 (res judicata elements and claim preclusion application)
- Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 393 F.3d 210 (same nucleus of facts test for claim preclusion)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (treatment of statute-of-limitations dismissals as judgments on the merits)