Mwabira-Simera v. Sodexho Marriot Management Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
)
SAMUEL H. MWABIRA-SIMERA )
et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 06-2052 (RWR)
)
SODEXHO MARRIOTT )
MANAGEMENT SERVICES et al., )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiffs Samuel H. Mwabira-Simera (“Mwabira”), proceeding
without prepayment of fees, and his adult daughter, Esther E.
Mutonyi-Simera (“Mutonyi”),1 filed this pro se complaint against
Sodexho Marriot Management Services (“Sodexho”), certain
individuals employed by Sodexho, and Howard University. This is
the fourth complaint Mwabira has filed against Sodexho, which
employed him as a utility worker (Compl. ¶ 8), and/or Howard
University, alleging discrimination in violation of federal law
and several common law torts. In a prior employment dispute
between Mwabira and Sodexho, the parties submitted to arbitration
and resolved the matter by an agreement executed March 15, 2004,
releasing Sodexho and its employees from all claims that Mwabira
1
Plaintiff Mutonyi neither applied for nor was granted
leave to proceed without prepayment of fees, and therefore, is
not entitled to proceed.
- 2 -
did or could have alleged in the underlying grievance. See
Mwabira-Simera v. Sodexho Marriott Mgmt. Servs., Civil Action
Nos. 04-538 and 04–1240 (JDB), 2005 WL 1541041, at *1 (D.D.C.
June 30, 2005). Despite the agreement, within the next four
months Mwabira had filed two largely duplicative lawsuits against
Sodexho, some of its employees, and Howard University. After the
two suits were consolidated, the claims Mwabira brought against
Sodexho were dismissed as barred by the prior settlement
agreement, see id. at *1-2, and the related state law claims were
dismissed without prejudice on other grounds. See Mem. Op.,
Mwabira-Simera et al. v. Sodexho Marriot Mgmt. Servs. et al.,
Civil Action Nos. 04-538 & 04-1240 (JDB) (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2005).
Mwabira’s discrimination suit against Howard University, where he
had been enrolled as a graduate student, resulted in an award of
summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. See Mwabira-
Simera v. Howard Univ., 692 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2010).2
The complaint in this case consists primarily of allegations
regarding Sodexho and its employees that duplicate those alleged
in earlier cases or that could have been alleged in earlier
cases.3 Res judicata embodies the proposition that “a final
2
The plaintiff appealed the decision, and the appeal was
dismissed for failure to prosecute.
3
Howard University is not mentioned in the complaint except
insofar as it alleges that “[d]efendant Howard is vicariously
liable for the tort[i]ous acts and omissions of defendant Jones”
(id. ¶ 54), an allegation that is contradicted by the complaint’s
- 3 -
judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties . . .
from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in
that action.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). In
other words, “a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a
second suit involving identical parties . . . based on the same
cause of action.” Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 393 F.3d 210, 217 (D.C.
Cir. 2004). “The general principle of [res judicata] is that a
final, valid judgment on the merits precludes any further
litigation between the same parties on the same causes of
action.” Stanton v. D.C. Court of Appeals, 127 F.3d 72, 78 (D.C.
Cir. 1997). A “cause of action, for purposes of [res judicata],
comprises all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the
defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or
series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties
“may not relitigate any ground for relief which they already have
had an opportunity to litigate –– even if they chose not to
exploit that opportunity” in the prior suit. Page v. United
States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984). All of the claims
based on alleged events that predate the filing of Mwabira’s
prior lawsuits against Sodexho in 2004 are barred by res
judicata, and these claims will be dismissed. See Hobley v. KFC
allegation that Jones is the “Chief Chef of defendant Sodexho[.]”
(Id. ¶ 5.)
- 4 -
U.S. Props., Inc., No. 07-7030, 2007 WL 2390696, at *1 (D.C. Cir.
June 27, 2007) (concluding that district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of claims as barred by res judicata was proper).
However, the complaint also contains some newly pled
allegations beginning in August 2004 regarding Sodexho and its
employees, which could not have been pled in the earlier cases
Mwabira filed against Sodexho. These new allegations relating to
Mwabira include claims that Sodexho employees (a) subjected him
to repeated body and strip-searches (Compl. ¶¶ 15(C), 27, 59(A))
and locker and bag searches (id. ¶¶ 28, 30, 59), issued multiple
“reprimands” and told him to quit or told others that he should
be fired (id. ¶¶ 27, 29-30, 59(D)), (c) refused to allow Mwabira
to drive a truck for Sodexho (id. ¶¶ 28, 59(D)), (d) refused to
allow Mwabira to punch out or monitor the punch out station
(id. ¶¶ 51, 59(D)), and denied him “rehabilitation” related to
his ankle surgery. (Id. ¶ 35.) The complaint’s only allegations
relating to plaintiff Mutonyi arise from alleged searches of her
person, and it is not clear whether the allegations of strip
searching relate to Mutonyi or only to Mwabira. (See id. ¶¶ 27,
59(A).) These factual claims are not so fantastic or delusional
that they can be deemed clearly baseless and dismissed as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Cf. Hewlett v.
Leon, Civil Action No. 11-872 (ESH), 2011 WL 1790733, at *1
(D.D.C. May 10, 2011) (dismissing as frivolous a pro so complaint
- 5 -
that alleged that judges and law enforcement officers hired
family members to spy on the plaintiff, and that family members
placed viruses in the plaintiff’s food). Accordingly, it is
hereby
ORDERED that the complaint be, and hereby is, DISMISSED with
respect to all claims arising out of conduct prior to August
2004. It is further
ORDERED that the defendants file by June 24, 2011 an answer
or other response to the claims in the complaint arising out of
allegations occurring after August 2004.
SIGNED this 25th day of May, 2011.
__________/s/_______________
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge