James Malles v. Governor of Pennsylvania

ALD-011 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2995
___________
JAMES R. MALLES,
Appellant
v.
GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 1:12-cv-00054)
District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 12, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, VANASKIE and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed October 31, 2012)
_______________
OPINION
_______________
PER CURIAM.
James R. Malles, a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals the
District Court’s order dismissing his complaint as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
We agree with the District Court’s conclusions regarding the application of res judicata in
this matter. Because the appeal presents no substantial issue, we will summarily affirm
the District Court’s order.
I.
Malles is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in
Albion, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Albion”). In February 2010, he was transferred to the
Muskegon Correctional Facility (“Muskegon”) in Michigan pursuant to the Interstate
Corrections Compact (“ICC”). Malles was confined at Muskegon until May 2011, when
he was returned to SCI-Albion. Prior to his transfer back to SCI-Albion, Malles and two
other prisoners commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking their release and monetary damages for the time they
were detained at Muskegon. See Maines, et al., v. Rendell, et al., 1:11-cv-00070-SPB.
The complaint alleged that, by enacting and enforcing the ICC, the Governor and
Attorney General of Pennsylvania, among other defendants, violated the constitutions of
the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The District Court upheld the
validity of the ICC as applied to the plaintiffs, and dismissed the complaint as to all
defendants. It appears that none of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
In February 2012, Malles filed a new complaint in the same District Court, naming
the Governor and Attorney General of Pennsylvania as defendants and alleging that his
transfer to and from Muskegon pursuant to the ICC violated the U.S. Constitution. The
2
new complaint added claims under the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments that were not
alleged in the Maines complaint, but the underlying facts and claim for relief remained
the same. The District Court dismissed Malles’s complaint on the ground that he was
precluded from relitigating claims identical to those in Maines against the same
defendants. Malles filed a timely notice of appeal.
II.
We have jurisdiction over final orders of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. This Court has plenary review over the District Court’s application of res judicata.
Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 172 (3d Cir. 2009). We summarily
affirm an order of the District Court “when no substantial question is presented by the
appeal.” United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 190 n.3 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
We agree with the District Court that Malles is precluded from relitigating the
present claims. The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars a plaintiff who has
received a final judgment on the merits in one action from litigating another suit against
the same parties based on the same cause of action. See CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Huls
Am., Inc., 176 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 1999). A litigant is precluded from raising a claim
where “there has been (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the
same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same causes of
action.” United States v. Athlone Indus. Inc., 746 F.2d 977, 983 (3d Cir. 1984). Whether
two causes of action are identical depends, in general, on a consideration of (1) whether
3
the acts complained of and the demand for recovery are the same; (2) whether the same
witnesses and documents will be necessary in the trial in both cases; and (3) whether the
material facts alleged are the same. See id. at 984.
Here, the application of res judicata precludes Malles from relitigating his claims
against the Governor and Attorney General of Pennsylvania. First, Malles received a
final judgment on the merits in a prior suit when the complaint in Maines was dismissed
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., v. Moitie, 452
U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981) (stating that “[t]he dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the merits” and has claim
preclusive effect). Second, Malles and the Appellees were parties to the suit in Maines.
Finally, Maines involved the same cause of action as is presented here: that the Appellees
deprived Malles of his constitutional rights when they transferred him to and from
Muskegon pursuant to the ICC. Malles’s addition of claims arising under the Fifth,
Sixth, and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution does not alter the fact that the
present suit involves the same parties, the same operative facts, and the same demand for
recovery as the suit in Maines.1
Accordingly, because this appeal presents us with no substantial question, we will
summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
1
To the extent that Malles requests his release from prison, we note that such requests
are cognizable only in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
4