UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COURTNEY ANTHONY BAILEY, 

# FILED FEB 102009 NANCYMAYERWHITTINGTON CLERk U.S. DISTPIteTCOURT'

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 

# 09 0255 v. ALAN KAY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on consideration ofplaintiffs application to proceed in formapauperis andpro se complaint. The Court will grant the application, and will dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffalleges that, after charges against him were dismissed bythe Superior Court of the District ofColumbia on February 17, 2005, he was detained at the D.C. Jail "for a period of 72 hours so that the State ofMaryland could obtain custody ofPlaintiff'pursuant to an outstanding warrant. Compi. at 3. He further alleges that, during this 72-hourperiod, Deputy United States Marshals "executed a federal arrest warrant overPlaintiffsperson," and thereafter Plaintiffappeared before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Id. It appears that Magistrate Judge Kay held Plaintiffwithout bond and signed an Order committing him to the District ofMaryland. !d. at 3-4 & Ex. D (Commitment to Another District, Case No. 05-086M-01). In the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, Plaintiffpled guilty to one count ofpossession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and Plaintiffnow faces removal from the United States pursuant to the January 31, 2008 Order ofa United States Immigration Judge. Id. & Ex. H (excerpt from Order ofDeportation). Inthis action, Plaintiffchallenges the validity MagistrateJudge Kay's Orders and demands injunctive reliefsuch that Magistrate Judge Kay "take such affirmative steps as maybe necessary to remedythe past unlawful conduct," and that "all federal agencies are enjoined "from enforcing or executing anyjudgment, order, decree, detainer, orrule which stems from [Magistrate Judge] Kay's void orders." CompI. at 12. Generally, a plaintiffis expected to "present in one suit all the claims for reliefthat he mayhave arising out ofthe same transaction or occurrence." Us. Indus., Inc. v. Blake Const. Co., Inc., 765 F.2d 195, 205 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). Underthe doctrine ofres judicata, a priorjudgment on the merits ofa plaintiffs claim bars the relitigation ofthe claim and any other claims that could have been submitted to the Court. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90,94 (1980) (resjudicata bars not onlythose issues that were previously litigated, but also those that could have been but were not raised); IA.M Nat'l Pension Fund v. Indus. GearMfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944,949 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that resjudicata "forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously"); Flynn v. 3900 Watson Place, Inc., 63 F. Supp. 2d 18,22 (D.D.C. 1999) (quoting Shin v. Portals Confederation Corp., 728 A.2d 615,618 (D.C. 1999)). Here, review ofthis Court's docket shows that plaintiffeither has raised or has had an opportunity to raise the claims set forth in the instant complaint. See Bailey v. Kay, No. 08-0369, 2008 WL 576781, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 29, 2008) (Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.c. § 1915A(b)(2)), aff'd, No. 08-5066,2008 WL 4552141 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 10,2008) (per curiam). Itis clear that Plaintiffhad a prior opportunity to seek injunctive relief, and, instead, sought only monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such a lawsuit. See, e.g., Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988). The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs claims are barred under the doctrine ofresjudicata. See, e.g., Bodnar v. Chidester, No. 3:07 CV 0248, 2007 WL 1667948,at 

## * (N.D. Ind. June 7, 2007) (concluding that prior dismissal with prejudice ofclaims against a state courtjudgebarred subsequent claims against the samejudge). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action withprejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum is issued separately onthis same date.

Date:

## ~ . 

### ;tgI tlDD

# 9