Case Information
*1 UNITED S T A TE S D I S T R I C T COURT
D I S T R I C T O F NEW J E R S E Y J E RR Y S O M E R S ET , Civ. No. 19 - 19707 (KM) P l a i n ti ff , V.
OPINION P A R T N E R S PHARMACY LLC, S T R A TE G I C DELIVERY S O L U T I ON S LLC, J UDG E FRANK COVELLO, J O S E P H ELAM, a nd LAWRENCE D. E I C H E N , E S Q .,
D e f e nd a n t s . Mr. J e rr y S o m e r s e t h a s r ece n tl y filed a civil c o m p l a i n t in t h i s m a tt e r , c iti ng , i n t e r cilia, t h e A m e r i ca n s w it h D i s a b iliti e s Act (ADA). (I will r e f e r to t h i s , t h e a bov e - ca p ti on e d ca s e , a s S o m e r s e t III, for r ea s on s t h a t will i mm e d i a t e l y b ec o m e c l ea r . ) T h e c o m p l a i n t w a s acc o m p a n i e d by a n a pp li ca ti on to p r o cee d in f o r i n a p a up e r i s (“IFP”), w h i c h I h a v e g r a n t e d , p e r m itti ng it to be filed w it hou t a fee.
T h e c o m p l a i n t is acc o m p a n i e d by p l a i n ti ff s Civil C ov e r S h ee t . T h i s , und e r “ R e l a t e d C a s e s , If Any” d i s c l o s e s t h e p r i o r s t a t e c ou r t liti g a ti on t h a t is t h e s ub j ec t of t h e c o m p l a i n t . S o m e r s e t v. E l a m , No. D C - 0631 1 - 15 (N.J. S up e r i o r C ou r t , Law D i v i s i on , S p ec i a l Civil P a r t ) ( “ S o m e r s e t T . It do e s no t d i s c l o s e t h e p r i o r f e d e r a l ac ti on filed by Mr. S o m e r s e t a g a i n s t t h e s a m e d e f e nd a n t s , b a s e d on t h e s a m e e v e n t s . S o m e r s e t u. S t a t e o f N e w J e r s e y , e t al., Civ. No. 17 - 993 (D.N.J.) ( “ S o m e r s e t If’). S o m e r s e t I i w a s d i s m i ss e d w it h p r e j ud i ce a f t e r c on s i d e r a b l e m o ti on p r ac ti ce , on g r ound s i n c l ud i ng R ook e r- F e i d m a n , f a il u r e to s t a t e a c l a i m , a nd j ud i c i a l i mm un it y . B eca u s e t h i s c u rr e n t ac ti on , S o m e r s e t III, a ss e r t s s i m il a r c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e s a m e p a r ti e s b a s e d on t h e s a m e e v e n t s , it will b e d i s m i ss e d on r e s j ud i ca t a g r ound s , pu r s u a n t to 28 U . S . C § 19 15(e).
I *2 Discussion Having granted IFP status, the court is obligated to screen the allegations of the complaint to determine whether it (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from (iii)
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 19 15(e).1 The second ground, failure to state a claim, incorporates the familiar standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).2 On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint may be dismissed on res judicata grounds, where the necessary facts are “apparent on the face of the complaint.” Rycoline Products, Inc. i.’. C & W Unlimited, 109 F.3d 883, 886 (3d Cir. 1997); Smith v. Hillside Village, No. CV
[TJhe provisions of 19 15(e) apply to all in forma pauperis complaints, not simply those filed by prisoners. See, e.g., Grayson v. May view State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 n. 19 (3d Cir. 2002) (non-prisoner indigent plaintiffs are “clearly within the scope of § 19 15(e) (2)”). See also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)( 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners).
Atamian v. Bums, 236 F. App’x 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2007). See also Johnson v. Rihanna, No. CV 18-448, 2018 WL 3244630, at *1 (W.D. Pa. June 13, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 18-448, 2018 WL 3239819 (W.D. Pa. July 2, 2018). Very briefly, the complaint’s factual allegations must be sufficient to raise a [2] plaintiff’s right to relief above a speculative level, so that a claim is “plausible on its face.” Bell ML Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, Id. at 570; see also Umland z.c PLANCO Fin. Seru., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008). That facial- plausibility standard is met “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Where the plaintiff, like Mr. Somerset here, is proceeding pro se, the complaint is “to be liberally construed,” and, “however manfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). Nevertheless, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cfr. 2013). “While a litigant’s pro se status requires a court to construe the allegations in the complaint liberally, a litigant is not absolved from complying with Twombly and the federal pleading requirements merely because s/he proceeds pro se.” Thakar v. Tan, 372 F. App’x 325, 328 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). *3 17-0883 (KM), 2018 WL 588923, at*3 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2018). Resjudicatais may likewise be a fit basis for dismissal on IFP screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See MeMillian v. Trans World Airlines, No. 08—4449, 2009 WL 1396780, at *1 (3d cir. May 20, 2009) (dismissing appeal from order sua sponte dismissing complaint on res judicata grounds under Section 1915); Britt v. United Steel Workers Local 2367, 319 F. App’x 89, 90 (3d Cir. 2008) (affirming order sua sponte dismissing complaint for same).
Resjudicata of course requires the court to consider the contents of a prior judicial decision. On a motion to dismiss, the court may consider a prior judicial decision, particularly its own, not for the truth of facts therein, but for its existence and legal effect. Id. (citing S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Grp. Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426-27 (3d Cir. 1999)). See generally Fed. I?. Evid. 201. Here, Somerset u s indirectly relevant, and Somerset his directly relevant.
Somerset Iwas a suit filed by Mr. Somerset against Mr. Elam in state court. Somerset, who is vision-impaired, alleged that he made the down payment on a van for his friend, defendant Elam, to drive in connection with their floor refurbishing business. Elam, he says, took advantage of his disability and used the van in another business (apparently involving deliveries for pharmacies). This, Somerset alleged, violated their agreement to share and share alike. That state court matter went to trial. Mr. Somerset did not prevail, however, and judgment was entered in favor of Elam.
On February 14, 2017, Mr. Somerset filed the complaint in Somerset JIm this federal court, and it was assigned to me. The theories of recovery seemed to include the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., impairment of contracts, fraud, and breach of contract. The facts alleged were similar. Mr. Somerset expanded his claims, however, to encompass the businesses in which the van was used, as he asserted claims that his rights were violated by the judge and opposing attorney in the Somerset I state court action. Mr. Somerset sued the State of New Jersey; the Hon. Frank Covello, *4 J . S . C ., t h e p r e s i d i ng j udg e in S o m e r s e t L L a w r e n ce D. E i c h e n , E l a m ’ s a tt o r n e y in S o m e r s e t I; J o s e ph E l a m ; a nd S t r a t e g i c Delivery’ S y s t e m s (“SDS”) a nd P a r t n e r s P h a r m ac y LLC, s ee m i ng l y t h e o t h e r bu s i n e ss e s in w h i c h E l a m a ll e g e d l y u s e d t h e v a n w it hou t S o m e r s e t ’ s p e r m i ss i on .
T h e r e l e v a n t r u li ng s in S o m e r s e t B a r e a s follows: (a) O n S e p t e m b e r 26 , 2017 , t h e C ou r t filed a n O r d e r (DE 31) a nd O p i n i on
(DE 30 , a m e nd e d DE 70), d i s m i ss i ng t h e c o m p l a i n t a s a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e of New J e r s e y , J udg e Covello, E i c h e n , a nd P a r t n e r s , w it hou t p r e j ud i ce to t h e filing, w it h i n 30 d a y s , of a n a m e nd e d c o m p l a i n t . (An a m e nd e d c o m p l a i n t w a s filed on O c t ob e r 23 , 2017 . (DE 37))
(b) On J un e 20 , 2018 , t h e C ou r t filed a n O p i n i on (DE 60) a nd O r d e r (DE 61) d i s m i ss i ng t h e a m e nd e d c o m p l a i n t a s a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e of New J e r s e y , J udg e Covello, a nd P a r t n e r s , t h i s ti m e w it h p r e j ud i ce .
(c) On M a r c h 4, 2019 , t h e C ou r t filed a n O p i n i on (DE 77) a nd O r d e r (DE 78) d i s m i ss i ng t h e a m e nd e d c o m p l a i n t a s a g a i n s t t h e r e m a i n i ng d e f e nd a n t , SDS. T h i s d i s m i ss a l w a s w it h p r e j ud i ce , a nd t h e c l e r k w a s d i r ec t e d to c l o s e t h e file.3
Now, Mr. S o m e r s e t h a s filed S o m e r s e t III in t h i s C ou r t . T h i s ac ti on s ub s t a n ti a ll y dup li ca t e s S o m e r s e t IL T h e li s t of d e f e nd a n t s is t h e s a m e : P a r t n e r s , S D S R , J udg e Covello, E l a m , a nd a tt o r n e y E i c h e n . (The S t a t e of New J e r s e y h a s b ee n d r opp e d . ) T h e und e r l y i ng f ac t s a r e t h e s a m e : Mr. S o m e r s e t a ll e g e s t h a t h e i nv e s t e d in t h e v a n ; t h a t E l a m t ook a dv a n t a g e of h i s d i s a b ilit y a nd d i v e r t e d t h e v e h i c l e to h i s o w n bu s i n e ss ( i nvo l v i ng P a r t n e r s a nd SDSRJ; a nd t h a t J udg e Covello a nd E i c h e n v i o l a t e d h i s r i gh t s in t h e c ou r s e of t h e S o m e r s e t I p r o cee d i ng . He a dd s t h a t t h e it e m s t r a n s po r t e d in t h e v a n i n c l ud e d ill e g a l op i o i d s . ( S ee S o m e r s e t III C p lt ., DE 1)
C l a i m o r i s s u e p r ec l u s i on a s b e t w ee n two f e d e r a l ac ti on s is gov e r n e d by f e d e r a l s t a nd a r d s . C l a i m p r ec l u s i on h a s t h r ee e ss e n ti a l e l e m e n t s : “(1) a f i n a l Mr. S o m e r s e t a n d an a ss o c i a t e , Ronald Bass, n e v e r t h e l e ss c on ti nu e d to file [3] m o ti on s a n d l e tt e r s . *5 j udg m e n t on t h e m e r it s i n a p r i o r s u it i nvo l v i ng ( 2 ) t h e s a m e p a r ti e s o r t h e i r p r i v i e s a nd ( 3 ) a s ub s e qu e n t s u it b a s e d on t h e s a m e ca u s e s o f ac ti on . ” U n it e d S t a t e s u. A t h i on e I ndu s ., I n c ., 746 F . 2d 977 , 983 ( 3d C i r . 1984 ) . I ss u e p r ec l u s i on b a r s r e liti g a ti on o f a l e g a l o r f ac t u a l i ss u e w h e n “ ( 1 ) t h e i ss u e ... i s t h e s a m e a s t h a t i nvo l v e d i n t h e p r i o r ac ti on ; ( 2 ) t h e i ss u e w a s ac t u a ll y liti g a t e d ; ( 3 ) it w a s d e t e r m i n e d by a f i n a l a nd v a li d j udg m e n t; a nd ( 4 ) t h e d e t e r m i n a ti on w a s e ss e n ti a l t o t h e p r i o r j udg m e n t . P e l o r o z’. U n it e d S t a t e s , 488 F . 3d 163 , 174 — 75 ( 3d C i r . 2007 ) ( c it a ti on s o m itt e d ) . ” S E C a L aza r e I ndu s ., m a , 294 F . A pp ’ x 711 , 714 ( 3d C i r . 2008 ) .
T h i s i s no t a c l o s e ca s e . M r . S o m e r s e t s u e d M r . E l a m i n s t a t e c ou r t , a nd l o s t; t h e r e m e dy f o r a ny e rr o r i n t h a t p r o cee d i ng li e s i n t h e s t a t e a pp e ll a t e c ou r t s . I n s t ea d , h e s u e d E l a m a nd o t h e r s i n f e d e r a l c ou r t , bu t e v e n t u a ll y h i s c o m p l a i n t , a f t e r on e oppo r t un it y t o a m e nd , w a s d i s m i ss e d w it h p r e j ud i ce . A g a i n , h i s r e m e dy f o r a ny e rr o r w a s a n a pp ea l t o t h e U n it e d S t a t e s C ou r t o f A pp ea l s f o r t h e T h i r d C i r c u it , on ce f i n a l j udg m e n t w a s e n t e r e d on M a r c h 4 , 2019 . S ee O l a n i y i a A l e x a C a b C o ., 239 F . A pp5 c 698 , 699 ( 3d C i r . 2007 ) ( t o c h a ll e ng e d i s t r i c t c ou r t d ec i s i on , p l a i n ti ff m u s t e it h e r m ov e f o r r ec on s i d e r a ti on o r s ee k a pp e ll a t e r e v i e w , bu t m a y no t b r i ng n e w ac ti on b e f o r e a d i s t r i c t c ou r t j udg e ) . A g a i n , h e d i d no t a v a il h i m s e l f o f t h a t a pp e ll a t e r e m e dy , bu t h a s s i m p l y s u e d t h e s a m e p a r ti e s a g a i n , a ss e r ti ng e ss e n ti a ll y t h e s a m e c l a i m s .
I t i s t r u e t h a t s o m e f ac t s h a v e b ee n a dd e d — p r i m a r il y t h e a ll e g a ti on t h a t t h e it e m s t r a n s po r t e d i n c l ud e d ill e g a l op i o i d s . T h e und e r l y i ng t r a n s ac ti on s on w h i c h M r . S o m e r s e t s u e s , ho w e v e r , a r e p r ec i s e l y t h e s a m e . T h e r e s j ud i ca t a do c t r i n e s p r ec l ud e a ll c l a i m s a r i s i ng ou t o f t h e s a m e f ac t s t h a t w e r e o r c ou l d h a v e b ee n a ss e r t e d i n t h e p r i o r ac ti on . S ee A ll e n a M c C u rr y , 449 U . S . 90 , 94 , 101 S . C t . 411 , 414 ( 1980 ) ( “ U nd e r r e s j ud i ca t a , a f i n a l j udg m e n t on t h e m e r it s o f a n ac ti on p r ec l ud e s t h e p a r ti e s o r t h e i r p r i v i e s fr o m r e liti g a ti ng i s s u e s t h a t w e r e o r c ou l d h a v e b ee n r a i s e d i n t h a t ac ti on . ” ) .
H e d i d f il e a p r e m a t u r e no ti ce o f a pp ea l i n 2018 , bu t t h i s w a s d i s m i ss e d on [4] j u r i s d i c ti on a l g r ound s , b eca u s e t h e r e h a d no t y e t b ee n a f i n a l d ec i s i on i n t h e ca s e . ( D E 67 ( N ov . 7 , 2018 )) . N o no ti ce o f a pp ea l w a s f il e d f o ll o w i ng t h e c ou r t ’ s f i n a l d ec i s i on .
CONCLUSION
*6 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED on screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 15(e). Dated: November 6, 2019 % KEVIN MCNULTY
C) United States District Judge