Hughley v. United States Of America, No. 1:2011cv03805 - Document 15 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: This action, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1), is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii). The Court certifies, pursuant to 2 8 U. S.C. § 1915 (a) (3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 12/2/2011) (ft)

Download PDF
USDCSDNY DOCUMFNT Ey Er"'P'" r, 'I.: r ..... l...- : K \.. h.,;�C/u LY Fll..ED DOC#: " .. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---- --- --------- - ---------- ¢ -------- DATE FI:-:LE=n: x � �).7:lD tJ/ -r-� / l BOBBY HUGHLEY, Petitioner, 11 Civ. 3805 -against- (JFK) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ------ ----- ------- -------- --- ------ JOHN F. KEENAN, x United States District By Order dated August 18, petitioner Bobby Hughley 2011, Judge: the Court directed pro se (" Petitioner"), to amend a submission that the Court had construed as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, within sixty days of the date of that Order. The Court also dismissed Petitioner's claims for damages against the United States. At that time, the Court understood that the principal relief sought by Petitioner was the setting aside of his conviction in United States v. (JFK). On October 17, Complaint.1 2011, Hughley, No. 98 Cr. 695 Petitioner filed an Amended In his Amended Complaint, Petitioner does not seek to have the conviction mentioned above set aside. Rather, he seeks principally to challenge the Judgment of the Court with regard to an employment discrimination action he filed on 1 The Court interprets the Respondent named in the Amended Complaint, "United State American, See Attached Complaint 86 CV 8487, " to be the United States of America. November 5, Civ. 8487 19 86. (SWK). Hughley v. United States Postal Serv., For the following reasons, No. 86 this action is dismissed. I. In his prior suit, Background Petitioner raised claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, alleging that he was dismissed from the United States Postal Service (the "Postal Service" ) due to discrimination and, while employed there, was denied the use of a medically necessary orthopedic chair. March 5, 1992, By its Memorandum and Order dated the Court granted the Postal Service's motion to dismiss that action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, Hughley, 1992), No. 86 Civ. 84 87 (SWK), 1992 WL 51495 (S. D.N.Y. Mar. 5, and a judgment of dismissal was entered on March 1 8, (the "March 1992 Judgment" ). Petitioner appealed, 1992 and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. 993 F. 2d 1532 See Hughley v. the Postal Service, (2d Cir. 1993) No. 92-613 8, (unpublished table decision). In his Amended Complaint, Petitioner again raises claims of discrimination in regard to his employment and the termination of his employment with the Postal Service. Petitioner also requests the disclosure of certain documents by the Postal -2- Service pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act U.S.C. § ("FOIAH), 5 552. II. Legal Standard The Court is required to dismiss any in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, malicious claim, granted, that states a frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B). authorizes dismissal on any of these grounds, While the law federal courts "remain obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally. H Harris v. Mills, v. Pardus, 572 F.3d 66, 551 U.S. 89 72 (2007)). (2d Cir. 2009) Thus, be read with "special solicitudeH raise the "strongest Fed. [claims] Bureau of Prisons, (citing Erickson pro se complaints should and should be interpreted to that they suggest.H Triestman v. 470 F.3d 471, 475-76 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted) . III. A. Preclusive Effect Discussion of the March Under federal common law, 1992 Judgment two complementary doctrines define the preclusive effect of federal court judgments: preclusion and issue preclusion. Taylor v. Sturgell, 8 80, 892 U.S. 497, (200 8); 508 Semtek Int'l Inc. (2001). claim 553 U.S. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., The form of preclusion relevant here-- -3- 531 issue preclusion--bars the relitigation "of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment." u.s. at 892 (200 1)) . (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, Sturgell, 553 532 U.S. 742, 748 In keeping with the fundamental principles of fairness and due process, issue preclusion applies only against a party to the prior litigation. See Montana v. 147, 153 United States, 440 U. S. (1979). In pursuing the instant action, Petitioner's express purpose is to revive a prior action that was dismissed because one of his claims was deemed moot and the others could not be maintained in light of Petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Hughley, 1992 WL 51495, at *5. The Amended Complaint contains numerous references to the prior action. In fact, the "Statement of Claim," "Injuries," and "Remedies" sections of the Amended Complaint consist solely of references to the docket number of the prior action. The March 1992 Judgment precludes any relitigation of the threshold issues of justiciability and sub ject matter jurisdiction previously determined by the Court, and these jurisdictional defects bar Petitioner's claims in the Amended Complaint. Therefore, to the extent Petitioner claims he was sub jected to racial discrimination or unfair deprivation of the use of medical -4- equipment while he was employed by the 1992 Judgment requires dismissal B. Postal Service, the March FOIA Request in the Amended Complaint--Petitioner's One claim included FOIA request--is not barred nonetheless suffers from to compel FOIA a federal by the March agency See 5 u. S. c. indicated that the to comply with defect. FOIA One seeking must first make a and receive an unsatisfactory 552 (a) (4) (B). As Peti tioner has not Postal Service or any of its employees improperly denied him requested, §§ 1992 Judgment but a fatal procedural request with that agency response. of this action. access to the information he has this claim must also be denied. IV. This action, Conclusion filed in forma pauperis under 28 § 1915(a) (1), § 1915(e)(2) (B) (ii) . U.S.C. is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to -5- 28 U.S.C. The Court certifies, pursuant to 2 8 U. S.C. § 1915 (a) (3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, in forma p aup er is status is denied and therefore purpose of 438, an appeal. 444-45 See Coppedge v. United States, 369 for the U.S. (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York December 1.- , 2011 �� �H� United States District Judge -6-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.