UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
___________________________________
)
SAUNDRA TAYLOR, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 16-1912 (RC)
)
LAW OFFICE OF GALIHER, CLARKE )
& GALIHER, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The instant action is the second the plaintiff has brought against the Law Office of
Galiher, Clarke & Galiher and Richard W. Galiher, Jr., whom she retained in 2009 to represent
her in a worker’s compensation matter, that is, a request for a modification of an April 20, 2005
Compensation Order to award her permanent total disability benefits. The Court granted
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
and dismissed the prior case because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted. Taylor v. Law Office of Galiher, Clarke & Galiher, No. CV 14-1166, 2015 WL
5174007, at *5 (D.D.C. Sept. 2, 2015), aff’d sub nom. Taylor v. Law Office of Galiher, No. 15-
7093, 2016 WL 232008 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 14, 2016) (per curiam).
On October 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 4, why the
instant action should not be dismissed. It appeared that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted because the claims set forth therein are barred under the doctrine of
1
res judicata. This matter has come before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Response to Order [to] Show
Cause Order of October 7, 2016,” ECF No. 5 (“Pl.’s Resp.”).
Generally, a plaintiff is expected to “present in one suit all the claims for relief that he
may have arising out of the same transaction or occurrence.” U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Blake Constr.
Co., Inc., 765 F.2d 195, 205 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). “Under the doctrine of res
judicata, or claim preclusion, a subsequent lawsuit will be barred if there has been prior litigation
(1) involving the same claims or cause of action, (2) between the same parties or their privies,
and (3) there has been a final, valid judgment on the merits, (4) by a court of competent
jurisdiction.” Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
“Whether two cases implicate the same cause of action turns on whether they share the same
‘nucleus of facts.’” Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Page v. United
States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).
It is apparent that the plaintiff brings the same claim against the same parties both in the
prior case and in the instant action. Here, the legal malpractice claim arises from the defendants’
representation of the plaintiff in the same worker’s compensation matter, including a hearing in
October 2009 culminating in an order issued in August 2010. This Court, a court of competent
jurisdiction, entered a final judgment on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.
The plaintiff asserts that the Court’s order to show cause is premature because the
defendants have not yet responded to her Complaint. See Pl.’s Resp. at 1. She further asserts
that the dismissal of the prior case did “not specif[y] failure to state a claim operates as an
adjudication up[on] merits,” id., and she considers it the defendants’ obligation to assert res
judicata as a defense, id. at 2. Further, the plaintiff contends, the dismissal of the prior case is
not an adjudication on the merits because the Court did “not find the defendants were not
2
negligen[t] on the same cause of action[.]” Id. Lastly, the plaintiff argues that “a Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal is a procedural defeat rather than a final decision.” Id. The plaintiff is mistaken.
The Court need not wait until the defendants have had an opportunity to respond to the
Complaint where, as here, it “determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). The dismissal of the plaintiff’s prior case
operates as an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata. See, e.g., Haase v.
Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Polsby v. Thompson, 201 F. Supp. 2d 45, 49
(D.D.C. 2002). Its preclusive effect is not dependent on an express warning in the Memorandum
Opinion and Order dismissing the prior case. This “judgment bars any further claim based on
the same ‘nucleus of facts,’ for ‘it is the facts surrounding the transaction or occurrence which
operate to constitute the cause of action, not the legal theory upon which a litigant relies.’”
Page, 729 F.2d at 820 (footnote and citations omitted). Res judicata thus prevents a party from
relitigating in a separate proceeding “any ground for relief which [she] already [has] had an
opportunity to litigate[,] even if [she] chose not to exploit that opportunity,” and regardless of the
soundness of the earlier judgment. Hardison v. Alexander, 655 F.2d 1281, 1288 (D.C. Cir.
1981); I.A.M. Nat’l Pension Fund v. 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”)
(citation omitted).
The Court concludes that the plaintiff’s pro se Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted because the claims set forth therein are barred under the doctrine of
res judicata. To preclude the plaintiff from contesting matters she already has litigated “protects
[her] adversaries from the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial
resources, and fosters reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent
3
decisions.” Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1979). The Complaint and this
civil action will be dismissed. An Order is issued separately.
DATE: October 31, 2016 /s/
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
4