NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SOLOMON UPSHAW,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5075

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-CV-00058, Judge Lawrence J. Block.

______________________ 

Decided: September 11, 2015

______________________ 

 SOLOMON UPSHAW, Cape Neddick, ME, pro se.

 ALLEN M. BRABENDER, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for appellee.

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
2 UPSHAW v. US

PER CURIAM. 

The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed 

Solomon Upshaw’s complaint seeking reversal of a prior 

judgment. Because we agree with the trial court that the 

doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff’s suit, we affirm the 

trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Upshaw’s complaint.

I 

In January 2014, prior to the present action, 

Mr. Upshaw filed a separate suit in the Court of Federal 

Claims seeking damages based on a decision by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (“Band”) declining to enroll 

him as a member. See Upshaw v. United States, No. 14-

cv-0058, 2014 WL 2430786, at *1 (Fed. Cl. May 30, 2014) 

(“Upshaw I”). In response to the government’s motion to 

dismiss, Mr. Upshaw submitted documentation showing 

that, in 1907, the government rejected an application by 

Georgeana Upshaw for a share of a fund appropriated by 

Congress for the Cherokee Indians. Id. Mr. Upshaw 

argued that, as a descendent of Georgeana Upshaw, he 

was injured by this 1907 rejection. Id. The Court of 

Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Upshaw’s complaint, 

concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction because the 

federal government has no statutory obligation to act in 

Cherokee enrollment issues. Id. The Court of Federal 

Claims also concluded that any claim from the 1907 

rejection of Georgeana Upshaw’s application was barred 

by the statute of limitations. Id. On appeal to this court, 

we affirmed. See Upshaw v. United States, No. 2014-

5104, 582 Fed. App’x 888, 889–90 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 

2014) (“Upshaw II”).

II

Mr. Upshaw’s complaint in this action seeks to relitigate the same issues already decided by the Court of 

Federal Claims in Upshaw I and affirmed by this court in 

Upshaw II. The doctrine of res judicata, sometimes 
UPSHAW v. US 3

referred to as claim preclusion, “operates to give a party 

one, and only one, full and fair opportunity to litigate its 

matter.” Bowers Inv. Co., LLC v. United States, 695 F.3d 

1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 

U.S. 880, 892 (2008)). “[T]o prevail on a claim of res 

judicata, the party asserting the bar must prove that (1) 

the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the first suit 

proceeded to a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the 

second claim is based on the same set of transactional 

facts as the first.” Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 

1052, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Parklane Hosiery Co. v. 

Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5 (1979)). There can be no 

doubt that res judicata applies here. Mr. Upshaw asks 

the Court of Federal Claims to re-decide the same issues 

that the trial court decided in Upshaw I and that this 

court affirmed in Upshaw II. Accordingly, we affirm the 

trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Upshaw’s complaint. 

AFFIRMED

No costs.