-------------------------
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 1 12012
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
)
TRACY JENSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
V. ) Civil Action No. 12 ~ )950
)
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis
and his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiff, a former air traffic controller, appears to allege that the Federal Aviation
Administration ("FAA") breached a collective bargaining agreement by failing to implement a
new pay system properly and to apply pay raises retroactively. Review of the Court's docket
shows that plaintiff has raised, without success, this and other claims on multiple occasions. See
Jenson v. Huerta, No. 12-0686,2012 WL 1669527, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2012); see also
Jenson v. Me/lady, No. 2:10-cv-0493, 2011 WL 3679142, at *1 (D. Idaho Aug. 23, 2011) (listing
"twelve other actions relating to recovery of the same lost wages").
Under the principle of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits in one action "bars any
further claim based on the same 'nucleus of facts' .... " Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818,
820 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Expert Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1234 (D.C. Cir.
1977)). Res judicata bars the relitigation "of issues that were or could have been raised in [the
prior] action." Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (quoting Allen
3
v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90,94 (1980)); see !A.M Nat'! Pension Fundv. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co.,
723 F.2d 944, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that res judicata "forecloses all that which might
have been litigated previously"). Plaintiff's claim was adjudicated in a prior action in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which this Court previously found to have
preclusive effect. See Jenson v. Heurta, Nos. 10-1071, 11-999 & 11-1180 (ABJ),- F. Supp. 2d
- , 2011 WL 6145522 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2011) (dismissing plaintiff's three consolidated actions
stemming from the air traffic controllers' pay dispute as barred by claim preclusion). Therefore,
the Court will dismiss this repetitive action with prejudice.'
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
United States District Judge
Plaintiff is warned that his filing of repetitive actions may result ultimately in the
imposition of sanctions barring him from the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis and/or
restricting his ability altogether to file a civil action in this Court. See, e.g., Hurt v. Social
Security Admin., 544 F.3d 308, 310 (D.C. Cir. 2008).