ALD-011 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2995

___________

JAMES R. MALLES,

Appellant

v.

GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1:12-cv-00054)

District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

October 12, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, VANASKIE and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed October 31, 2012)

_______________

OPINION

_______________

PER CURIAM.

James R. Malles, a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals the 

District Court’s order dismissing his complaint as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 
2

We agree with the District Court’s conclusions regarding the application of res judicata in 

this matter. Because the appeal presents no substantial issue, we will summarily affirm 

the District Court’s order. 

I.

Malles is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in 

Albion, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Albion”). In February 2010, he was transferred to the 

Muskegon Correctional Facility (“Muskegon”) in Michigan pursuant to the Interstate 

Corrections Compact (“ICC”). Malles was confined at Muskegon until May 2011, when 

he was returned to SCI-Albion. Prior to his transfer back to SCI-Albion, Malles and two 

other prisoners commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Pennsylvania seeking their release and monetary damages for the time they 

were detained at Muskegon. See Maines, et al., v. Rendell, et al., 1:11-cv-00070-SPB. 

The complaint alleged that, by enacting and enforcing the ICC, the Governor and 

Attorney General of Pennsylvania, among other defendants, violated the constitutions of 

the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The District Court upheld the 

validity of the ICC as applied to the plaintiffs, and dismissed the complaint as to all 

defendants. It appears that none of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

In February 2012, Malles filed a new complaint in the same District Court, naming 

the Governor and Attorney General of Pennsylvania as defendants and alleging that his 

transfer to and from Muskegon pursuant to the ICC violated the U.S. Constitution. The 
3

new complaint added claims under the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments that were not 

alleged in the Maines complaint, but the underlying facts and claim for relief remained 

the same. The District Court dismissed Malles’s complaint on the ground that he was 

precluded from relitigating claims identical to those in Maines against the same 

defendants. Malles filed a timely notice of appeal.

II.

We have jurisdiction over final orders of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 

1291. This Court has plenary review over the District Court’s application of res judicata. 

Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 172 (3d Cir. 2009). We summarily 

affirm an order of the District Court “when no substantial question is presented by the 

appeal.” United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 190 n.3 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).

We agree with the District Court that Malles is precluded from relitigating the 

present claims. The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars a plaintiff who has 

received a final judgment on the merits in one action from litigating another suit against 

the same parties based on the same cause of action. See CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Huls 

Am., Inc., 176 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 1999). A litigant is precluded from raising a claim

where “there has been (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the 

same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same causes of 

action.” United States v. Athlone Indus. Inc., 746 F.2d 977, 983 (3d Cir. 1984). Whether 

two causes of action are identical depends, in general, on a consideration of (1) whether 
4

the acts complained of and the demand for recovery are the same; (2) whether the same 

witnesses and documents will be necessary in the trial in both cases; and (3) whether the 

material facts alleged are the same. See id. at 984.

Here, the application of res judicata precludes Malles from relitigating his claims 

against the Governor and Attorney General of Pennsylvania. First, Malles received a 

final judgment on the merits in a prior suit when the complaint in Maines was dismissed 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., v. Moitie, 452 

U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981) (stating that “[t]he dismissal for failure to state a claim under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the merits” and has claim 

preclusive effect). Second, Malles and the Appellees were parties to the suit in Maines. 

Finally, Maines involved the same cause of action as is presented here: that the Appellees 

deprived Malles of his constitutional rights when they transferred him to and from 

Muskegon pursuant to the ICC. Malles’s addition of claims arising under the Fifth, 

Sixth, and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution does not alter the fact that the 

present suit involves the same parties, the same operative facts, and the same demand for 

recovery as the suit in Maines.

1

Accordingly, because this appeal presents us with no substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

 

1

 To the extent that Malles requests his release from prison, we note that such requests 

are cognizable only in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 

411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).