DLD-127 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-3245
___________
ROBERT F. EDWARDS,
Appellant
v.
U.S. DEPT. OF H.U.D.; HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PLAINFIELD;
U.S. DEPT. OF H.U.D., NEW YORK REGIONAL OFFICE;
CITY OF PLAINFIELD; U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. Civil No. 2:18-cv-00451)
District Judge: Honorable Esther Salas
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect,
Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 27, 2020
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 2, 2020)
_________
OPINION*
_________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Robert F. Edwards appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of
his claims against several defendants. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily
affirm the District Court’s judgment.
In January 2018, Edwards filed a complaint in the District Court alleging that he
had slipped and fallen on a sidewalk near his apartment in Plainfield, New Jersey, on
December 14, 2013. Edwards alleged that he had leased his apartment from defendant
Housing Authority of Plainfield (“HAP”) and that HAP and defendant U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) knew of dangerous, slippery conditions on
the sidewalk that were left unattended. Edwards sought to pursue tort claims. He
subsequently amended his complaint to add the City of Plainfield and the HUD New
York Regional Office as defendants.
After several defendants moved to dismiss, it became apparent that Edwards had
brought an action in 2015 in the Superior Court of New Jersey against HAP and an
individual defendant alleging virtually identically factual allegations as those in his
federal complaint. The Superior Court dismissed Edwards’ action with prejudice in
August 2017. Edwards had also brought an administrative tort claim with HUD in 2016
that was denied in July 2017. The District Court ultimately dismissed Edwards’ claims
against HAP with prejudice on res judicata grounds and dismissed his remaining claims
without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint.
Edwards then filed a second amended complaint, bringing claims solely against
HUD and the United States Attorney’s Office. On those defendants’ motion, the District
2
Court dismissed Edwards’ claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Edwards timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal of Edwards’ claims. See
Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 172 (3d Cir. 2009); Fowler v. UPMC
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 206 (3d Cir. 2009); Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d
179, 180 (3d Cir. 2008); U.S. SEC v. Infinity Grp. Co., 212 F.3d 180, 186 n.6 (3d Cir.
2000); see also NJ Physicians, Inc. v. President of U.S., 653 F.3d 234, 241 n.8 (3d Cir.
2011) (explaining that dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are “by definition
without prejudice”). We may summarily affirm a district court’s decision “on any basis
supported by the record” if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray
v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
First, the District Court properly dismissed Edwards’ claims against HAP on res
judicata grounds. “[T]he doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, . . . bars repetitious
suits involving the same cause of action once a court of competent jurisdiction has
entered a final judgment on the merits.” United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 563
U.S. 307, 315 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It is an affirmative
defense, and “the party asserting such a bar bear[s] the burden of showing that it applies.”
United States v. Athlone Indus., Inc., 746 F.2d 977, 983 (3d Cir. 1984). As detailed by
the District Court, HAP met its burden of showing that Edwards brought a previous
action alleging materially identical claims against HAP, and that his claims were
dismissed with prejudice, a final judgment on the merits. Thus, Edwards’ claims against
3
HAP are barred by res judicata.
Next, Edwards failed to state a claim against the City of Plainfield because he
made no factual allegations against the City. Despite being granted leave to amend his
claims against the City, Edwards did not name the City as a defendant in his final
amended complaint or add any allegations against the City. Accordingly, Edwards’
claims against the City were also properly dismissed.
Finally, Edwards’ remaining claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Although Federal
Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claims can be brought against the United States for certain
torts committed by federal employees, the FTCA does not permit a suit against an agency
in its own name. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679; Meyer, 510 U.S. at 476. Edwards did not name
the United States as a defendant in any of his complaints, despite instructions and
opportunities to do so.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
4