UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1753

LENA HARDAWAY; ANGELENE HARDAWAY,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL HOLDING LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District 

Judge. (8:13-cv-00149-DKC)

Submitted: October 25, 2013 Decided: December 5, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lena Hardaway, Angelene Hardaway, Appellants Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pro se Appellants Lena and Angelene Hardaway appeal 

the district court’s order denying their motion to file an 

amended complaint and dismissing their original complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a 

claim. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment and 

remand for further proceedings.

A federal court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis 

case at any time the court determines the action or appeal is 

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who 

is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To 

survive the district court’s scrutiny, a complaint filed in 

forma pauperis “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 

as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). We

review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state 

a claim. Epps v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 675 F.3d 315, 320 

(4th Cir. 2012).

Angelene Hardaway is a disabled person and Lena is her 

sister and guardian. They sought to assert three categories of 

claims in their suit against the companies that owned and/or 

managed Angelene’s apartment building, The Veridian, located in 
3

Silver Spring, Maryland: (1) disability discrimination and 

retaliation; (2) gender and race discrimination; and 

(3) miscellaneous state law claims. It is an understatement to 

say that the gist of the claims is obscure, but the district 

court seemed to discern, accurately, that the claims arise out 

of an ongoing dispute over Angelene’s apartment lease agreement.

Indeed, in a prior action, the district court issued a 

comprehensive memorandum opinion and order dismissing claims 

that largely track the claims asserted in this case. See

Hardaway v. Equity Residential Management, LLC, 2012 WL 3903489 

(D.Md. Sept. 6, 2012). 

 It appears the district court dismissed the disability 

discrimination and retaliation claims on the basis of collateral 

estoppel, relying on its earlier opinion and order. The 

doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes re-litigation of 

issues of fact or law that are identical to issues actually 

determined and necessarily decided in prior litigation that 

resulted in a final judgment on the merits in which the party 

against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair 

opportunity to litigate. Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., 468

F.3d 213, 217–18 (4th Cir. 2006). The district court erred, 

however, in concluding summarily on the bare record before it, 

that the Hardaways’ prior claims, asserted against different 

defendants from those sued here, were precluded as a matter of 
4

law. This is because, as the Hardaways assert in their informal 

brief on appeal, the claims alleged here arose after the

district court had dismissed their earlier case. Specifically, 

they contend that here they complain of acts and omissions 

occurring on and after November 12, 2012. Accordingly, it 

remains to be seen whether the prior action operates as a bar to 

the disability and retaliation claims alleged here.

Turning to the Hardaways’ claims of race and gender 

discrimination, the court dismissed the claims for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies, citing Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. But the 

Hardaways do not assert employment claims, and the protections 

of Title VII are not at issue. Accordingly, whether any 

exhaustion requirement applies to their ostensible race and 

gender claims has not been resolved on the present record.

Finally, the district court did not address the 

Hardaways’ state claims in its final order. Although the 

district court seemingly declined to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over these claims, the amended complaint alleged 

the existence of diversity of citizenship. The complaint 

alleged that the Hardaways are citizens of Connecticut and 

Maryland, and that the Defendants are citizens of Illinois and 

Delaware, and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. 

If true, the court had diversity jurisdiction over the 
5

Hardaways’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The 

district court did not address these allegations. Accordingly, 

we vacate the dismissal of the Hardaways’ state law claims. 

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the judgment and 

remand for further proceedings. We express no view as to how 

the district court might best proceed upon remand, or whether 

any asserted claims might survive further preliminary 

proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

VACATED AND REMANDED