UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ ) PAULT. HI L I GH, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 12-0497 ( RW R) ) FRANCI SCO J . QUI

NTANA , WARDEN, )

) Respondent. ) __________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON In this action broug ht pro se , petitioner, a D istrict of Columbia prisoner inca rce rate d at the United States Penitentiary Victorville in Adela

nto, California, see ks a writ of habeas corpus
. He c halleng es his conviction enter ed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia based on
err ors alleg edly

made by the District of Columbia Court of Appea ls (“DCCA”) and the Super ior Court during the “f

act f inding pr ocedur e.” Me m. of L aw in Support of Pet. for Writ of Ha beas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 at 2 (“Question(s) Pre sented” ). Petitioner asser ts, among other e rror s, that the DCCA’s “re liance on Coleman v. United States is simpl y err oneous[,] ” and he see ks “re vers[al]” of the DCCA’s dec ision[ .]” Id . at 37. B eca use this action is based on a claim under lying a

n ear lier ac tion that was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, it, t oo, will be dismiss ed. Under the doctrine of re s judicata, a claim pre viously

adjudicate d on the merits by a cour t of compe tent jurisdiction may not be re litigated in a

new a ction, even if

the latter a ction is predic ated on a

differ ent leg al theory
. See Graham v. G onzalez , No. 03-1951, 2005 WL 3276180, at *3-4 (D .D.C. Sept. 30, 2005). Courts “may raise the res judicata pre clusion defe nse sua sponte, ” Rosendahl v. Nixon , 360 Fe d. Appx. 167, 168 (D.C. C ir. 2010) (c iting Arizona v.Calif

ornia , 530 U.S. 392, 412-13 (2000); Brown v. D.C. , 514 F.3d 1279, 1285- 86 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), a nd a “district c ourt may

apply res judicata upon takingjudicial notice of [a] [ party ’s] previous ca se.” Tinsl ey v . Equifax Credit Info. Serv’s, I nc. , No. 99-7031, 1999 WL506720 (D.C. Cir. J une 2, 1999) ( per c uriam) ( citing Gullo v. Vete rans Cooperative Housing Ass'n , 269 F.2d 517 ( D.C. Cir. 1959) (per curiam)). F urthermor e, “the doctrine of res judicata [or claim prec lusion] applies to dismissal[ s] for lack of jurisdiction as we ll as for other g rounds . . . .” Dozier v. Ford M

otor Co. , 702 F. 2d 1189, 1191 ( D.C. Cir. 1983); see G AF Corp. v. United States , 818 F.2d 901, 912- 13 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“ [A] judgme nt orderingdismiss al[] . . . will, for example, prec lude re litigation of the pr ecise issue of jurisdiction that led to the initial dismiss al.”)
. “F or cla im preclusion to apply , there must be (1) a n identity of par ties in both suit s; (2) a judgme nt rende red by

a cour t of compete nt jurisdiction; (3) a final judg ment on the merits; and (4) the sa me ca use of a ction in both suit s.” Graham , 2005 WL3276180 at *4 (c itations and internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioner ha s named the same war den in both actions and is challeng ing the same sente nce of 37 y ear s to life imposed by the Superior Court on May 12, 1994, following his convictions for assa ult with int ent to kill, may hem while ar

med, possession of a f irea rm duringa cr ime of violence , car ry ing a pistol wit hout a license , and possessing unreg istered ammuniti on. Cf. Pet. at 1 with Hil igh v. Quintana , Civ. Action No. 10-1717, Pet. at 2. Her e, petitioner makes similar arguments about the DCCA’s re view of his convic tion that
war rante d dismiss al of the pr ior ac tion because “a f eder al district court lac ks jurisdiction to revie w the dec isions of the D.C. Court of Appea ls.” Hiligh v. Quintana , Civ. Action No. 10-
21717, 2010 WL4069160, at *1 (D.D .C. Oct. 15, 2010); see id . (“[Petitioner] challeng es his

conviction enter ed by

the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, but he particula rly takes issue with the alleg ed misapplication of “ controlling authority” by the [DCC A] on review of his conviction.”) (citingPet. at 5). Be cause petitioner has state d nothing in the instant petition to cure the fore g oing jurisdictional defe ct, he is for eclose d from bring ing this re petitive action. A se parate Orde r of dismiss al ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.
_________/s/_____________ RI CHARD W. R OB ERTS DATE: May

8, 2012 United States District J udg e

3