Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03808/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03808-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEROY ANDREW WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 2:12-cv-3808-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an employment discrimination action brought pursuant to Title VII, 

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 18 

U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States). Consistent with the 

Court’s discussion on the record during the hearing in this matter on September 18, 

2014, the Court grants AT&T’s motion to dismiss. 

Mr. Washington’s federal claims relating to employment actions that 

occurred before and during 2005 are time-barred. Mr. Washington’s federal 

employment claims also fail because Mr. Washington previously has litigated 

those claims unsuccessfully in this Court and in the Eleventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals. See Washington v. Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc., 2:06-CV-1320 (Docs. 64–

65); Washington v. BellSouth, No. 07-15815 (11th Cir. July 8, 2008); Washington 

v. Bellsouth Corp., 2:10-CV-3306 (Doc. 2). Consequently, the doctrine of res 

FILED

 2014 Sep-19 PM 04:34

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:12-cv-03808-MHH Document 17 Filed 09/19/14 Page 1 of 2
2

judicata bars Mr. Washington’s federal employment claims.

1

 The Court dismisses 

those claims for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

To the extent that Mr. Washington attempts to assert state law claims 

pertaining to alleged attorney misconduct, the Court declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS AT&T’s motion to dismiss 

(Doc. 9). The Court directs the Clerk to please TERM Doc. 9. 

DONE and ORDERED this September 19, 2014.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Mr. Washington argues that the attorneys involved in his previous lawsuits committed fraud on 

the Court. Courts have expressed hostility to the “proposition that fraud on the court is an 

authority to allow a collateral attack on a judgment—i.e., defeating the defense of res judicata.” 

Plotner v. AT & T Corp., 224 F.3d 1161, 1170 (10th Cir. 2000). “Once jurisdiction is 

established, fraud on the court will not vitiate the preclusive effect of the court’s judgment unless 

the rendering court sets it aside.” Caliendo v. Rodriguez,70 F.3d 1274 (Table), 1995 WL 

709251, *3 (7th Cir. Nov. 30, 1995); see also Johnson v. Champions, 909 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 

1241 (S.D. Ala. 2014). If Mr. Washington wishes to challenge the judgment in Case 2:06-CV1320 based on his allegation of fraud on the Court, he must raise the challenge in that action 

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He may not pursue his arguments in a new 

lawsuit such as this.

Case 2:12-cv-03808-MHH Document 17 Filed 09/19/14 Page 2 of 2