BL D- 2 0 2 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1256

___________ A N D R E W F U L L M A N , A ppel l ant

v. JO H N E . P O T T E R , P o stm a ste r G e n e ra l; U N IT E D S T A T E S P O S T A L S E R V IC E ; E QUAL E M P L OYMENT OP P OR T UNI T Y COM M I S S I ONER ( EE OC) AGENCY A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 04910) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

M ay20, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed J ul y1, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM A n d re w F u llm a n f

iled a c o m p lain t in fo rm a p a u p e ris , nami ng, as defe ndant s , the Postm as t erG ener al , the U ni t ed St at es Post al Servi ce ( “Pos t al Servi ce” ) , and the EqualA l though Ful l m an al s o us ed the t erm “C om m i s s i oner ” i ns t ead of “C om m i s s i on” w hen 1 he w r ot e outthe age ncy ’ s name i n the capt i on and s horti ntr oduct i on of hi s compl ai nt , he u se d th e ter m “ A g e n c y ” in th e c a p tio n a n d th e ter m s “ A g e n c y ” a n d “ C o m m iss io n ” in form al l ynami ng the def endant s atthe begi nni ng of hi s compl ai nt . C om pl ai nt¶ 4.

2 E m pl oym entO pportuni tyC om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”) . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdi s m i s s ed the 1 compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) , s t at i ng thatFul l m an had f i l ed hi s compl ai ntas a means t o s eek r evi ew of the dec i s i ons i n hi s fi ve ea r l i ercas es agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es Post al Servi ce. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtexpl ai ned thatthe doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a pr ecl uded the r el i t i gat i on of Ful l m an’ s cl ai m s . Ful l m an fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd e n ie d . F ull m an ap peals . T he P ostm ast er G eneral , the P ost al S ervi ce, and the E E O C ask us t o s um m ar i l yaff

i rm the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on. T he A ppel l ees cont end thatFul l m an has been c hal l engi ng the 1989 deni al of hi s w orker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m and hi s 1989 t erm i nat i on fr om the Pos t al Servi ce f orm or e than a de cade . T heyar gue thathi s D i s tr i ct C o u rtca se f

rom w h ich th is ap p ea l st em s is an im p rop er a tt em p t t o h av e the D istri ct C o u rt r eadj udi cat e hi s ear l i ercl ai m s . T he A ppel l ees s t at e thatFul l m an’ s eff ortt o name the E E O C a s a d e f

e n d a n t d o e s n o t ch a n g e th e re su lt b e c a u se th e re lev a n t cla im s re late to h is co m p lai n ts ab o u t th e E E O O ff ice o f th e P o stal S erv ice, w h ich, as the D istri ct C o u rt expl ai ned pr evi ous l y , i s nota s epar at e ent i tys ubj ectt o s ui t . T heyfurthercont end thatthe evi dence thatFul l m an des cr i bes as new i s notnew – i ns t ead, i ti s evi dence he pr es ent edT h e A p p e llee s a lso n o te th e sc o p e o f F u llm a n ’s litig a tio n h isto ry(w h ich e x ten d s to 2 s ui t s agai ns totherfede r al , s t at e, and l ocal agenc i es and or gani zat i ons ) and thatthe D istric t C o u rt p re v io u slyw a rn e d F u llm a n “ to re f ra in f ro m a ttem p tin g to ‘re c o n f ig u re ’ h is gr i pes w i th the 1989 deni al of w orker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m s and/ orhi s empl oym entand s ubs equentt erm i nat i on fr om the Pos t al Servi ce. ” Ful l m an v. U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca, N o . 0 7 -1 6 6 3 , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 2 6 2 9 0 6 , * 4 (E .D . P a . A u g . 7 , 2 0 0 7 ). W e not e thatFul l m an onl ys peci fi ed the or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on 3 i n hi s not i ce of

appea l . H ow ever , the des i gnat ed fi nal or derbr i ngs up the ea r l i eror derfor ourr evi ew i n thi s cas e ( w e not e thati n hi s i nform al br i ef, w hi ch Ful l m an fi l ed des pi t e the 3 u n su cc essf

u ll yin a c o m p lai n t he f il ed in 2 0 0 5 (E . D . P a. C iv. N o . 0 5 -cv -01 3 5 2 ). 2 F u llm a n o p p o se s th e A p p e llee s’ m o tio n f o r su m m a rya f

f irm a n c e . H e sta tes b rie f ly th a t h is n e w ly d is c o v e re d e v id e n c e c o n c e rn s th e n a tu re o f th e in ju ri e s h e s u f

f e re d in 1 9 8 9 . T he as s ert ed and a ctual focus of hi s r es pons e, how ever , i s hi s cl ai m thatthe A ppel l ees have c om m i tt ed a f

r aud on the courti n r el at i on t o thei roppos i t i on t o an ea r l i ercompl ai nt thathe fi l ed. H e s peci fi cal l yi nform s us that“he i s notchal l engi ng s tr i ct l yhi s 1989 w orker ’ s [s i c] compensa t i on cl ai m , but. . . hi s s econd t erm i nat i on and C i vi l A ct i on N o. 0 5 -13 5 2 w h ich w as p roc u red b yfra u d o n the c o u rt . ” H e a sk s tha t w e re v iew all rec o rd evi dence i n the 2005 ca s e and va cat e the j udgm enti n thatcas e, cl ai m i ng thatthe U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyi n thatcas e s ubm i tt ed contr adi ct oryand per j ur ed af fi davi t s and thatthe Di s tr i c tCo u r twa s i n s e n s i t i v e a n d b i a s e d a g a i n s th i m. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng Ful l m an’ s compl ai nti s pl enary . See A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d 220, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e r evi ew the or derdeny i ng Ful l m an’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on forabus e of di s cr et i on. See K os hatka v. Phi l a. N ew s paper s , I nc. , 762 3s t ayof the br i efi ng s chedul e, he r eques t s r evi ew of the or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s cas e) . See,

e .g ., P a c itti v . M a c y ’s , 1 9 3 F .3 d 7 6 6 , 7 7 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 4 F. 2d 329, 333 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . U pon r evi ew , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i rm the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s deci s i ons becaus e no s ubs t ant i al i s s ue i s pr es ent ed on appe al . See L. A . R . 27. 4; I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . M os tof Ful l m an’ s cl ai m s w er e barr ed byr es j udi cat a. R es j udi cat a enc om pas s es tw o pr ecl us i on conce pt s – i s s ue pr ecl us i on, w hi ch for ecl os es l i t i gat i on of a l i t i gat ed and d ec ided m att er, an d claim p rec lusion (of ten re fe rred to as d ir ec t or co ll ateral estop p el), w hi ch di s al l ow s l i t i gat i on of a mat t erthathas neverbeen l i t i gat ed butw hi ch s houl d have b e e n p re s e n te d in a n e a rl ie r s u it. S e e M ig ra v . W a rr e n C ity S c h o o l D is t. B d . o f E d u c ., 465 U . S. 75, 77 ( 1984) . M anyi s s ues thatFul l m an di s cus s ed i n hi s compl ai ntar e the i ssues he rai sed, or could hav e rai sed, previ ou sl yregar ding the rej ect i on of h i s w orkers ’ compensa t i on cl ai m and hi s t erm i nat i ons fr om hi s empl oym ent . See, eg. , Ful l m an v. P o tte r, 4 8 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 7 8 2 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 7 ), a ff'd , 2 9 F . A p p ’x 9 1 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); F u llm a n v . H e n d e rs o n , 1 4 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 6 8 8 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 1 ), af f ' d, 29 F. A pp’ x 100 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I n fac t , i n hi s compl ai nt , s ee, e. g. , C om pl ai nt¶ 9, and i n hi s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on, he r eques t ed r evi ew of hi s ear l i erl aw s ui t s i n l i ghtof w hathe des cr i bed as new evi dence . A l s o, Ful l m an conc edes i n hi s r es pons e t o the A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on for s um m aryaff

i rm ance thathe i s s eeki ng t o r el i t i gat e the cl ai m s thathe r ai s ed i n E . D . Pa. C iv . N o . 0 5 -c v -0 1 3 5 2 , w h ic h w e re re je c te d in th e F u llm a n v . P o tte r d e c is io n s .Th e r e we r e n o c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e EE OC. 4 5 T o th e e x ten t th a t F u llm a n p re se n ted n e w a lleg a tio n s in h is c o m p lain t re latin g to th e “ E E O ,” th e yw e re a lleg a tio n s n o t ag a in st E E O C , w h ich h e n a m e d a s a d e f e n d a n t, C om pl ai nt¶ 4, butagai ns tthe Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyoffi ce of the Pos t al Servi ce, s ee i d. at¶¶ 6- 8, 10- 12, 14, & 19, E xhi bi t s A & B . See 29 C . F. R . § 1614. 102 4 ( des cr i bi ng an age ncy ’ s obl i gat i on t o cr eat e and s upportan equa l oppor tuni typr ogr am thatpr oces s es cl ai m s of di s cr i m i nat i on) . C ons trui ng the cl ai m s agai ns tthe “EE O ” as cl ai m s agai ns tthe Pos t al Servi ce, w hi ch he a l s o named as a def endant , w e conc l ude that theyal s o w er e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed. See Eri e Tel ecomm s . v. E r i e, 853 F. 2d 1084, 1089 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ( h o ld in g th a t w e m a ya f f ir m o n a n yb a s is s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd ). Ful l m an cl ai m ed thatthe EE O offi ce of the Pos t al Servi ce vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s i n a m yr i ad of w ay s bydi s m i s s i ng hi s new compl ai ntbeca us e i ts t at ed a c l ai m al r eadydeci ded a n d it e x p re s s e d d is s a tis f a c tio n w ith th e p ro c e s s in g o f p re v io u s ly f

ile d c o m p la in ts . H ow ever , fr om Ful l m an’ s ow n al l egat i ons , i ti s cl earthatFul l m an w as agai n pr es ent i ng c laim s a lre a d yd e c id e d a n d e x p re ss in g d iss a tisf a c tio n w ith th e p ro c e ss in g o f h is pr evi ous l yfi l ed compl ai nt s . See C om pl ai nt¶¶ 10- 14. Ful l m an di d nots t at e a c l ai m by al l egi ng thatthe EE O offi ce c om pl i ed w i th r egul at i ons thatr equi r e di s m i s s al unders uch circu m stan ce s. S ee 2 9 C . F . R . § 1 6 1 4 . 1 0 7 (a)(1) & (8). I n s hort , the D i s tr i ctC ourtpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed Ful l m an’ s compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e ). A lth o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ex p licitlyc o n sid e r w h e th e r it6

w oul d be fut i l e forFul l m an t o amend hi s compl ai nt , i ti s uncl earhow Ful l m an coul d have re sc u e d h is c o m p lain t in a n a m e n d m e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o gi ve Ful l m an an opportuni tyt o amend. See Shane v. Fauver , 213 F .3 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 5 -1 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( h o ld in g th a t u n le s s a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e f u tile , a d istric t co u rt m u st g iv e a p lain tiff th e o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d a c o m p lain t th a t f a ils to sta te a c la im ). F u rth erm o re, th e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing F u ll m an ’s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. A m ot i on forr econs i der at i on s houl d be us ed “t o corr ect m ani fes terr or s of l aw orfac tort o pr es entnew l ydi s cover ed evi dence , ” s ee H ar s co C orp. v. Z l otni cki, 77 9 F . 2d 90 6, 90 9 (3d C i r. 19 85 ), no tt o rest at e al readyrej ect ed argu m ents , w h ic h is w h a t F u llm a n d id in h is m o tio n . Forthes e r eas ons , w e gr antthe A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on and w i l l aff i rm the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s d e c is io n s .