1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARLES SIMON, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 09-0692 (RMU) : FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES, : Re Document Nos.: 2, 7, 8, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22 INC., et al ., : : Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM ORDER

G RANTING THE D EFENDANTS ’ M OTION TO D ISMISS ; D ENYING AS M OOT THE P LAINTIFF ’ S

M OTION FOR L EAVE TO P ROCEED I N F ORMA P AUPERIS , THE P LAINTIFF ’ S M OTION FOR J UDGMENT ON THE P LEADINGS , THE P LAINTIFF ’ S R EQUEST F OR A H EARING , THE P LAINTIFF ’ S M OTION FOR S UA S PONTE R ECUSAL , THE P LAINTIFF ’ S M OTION FOR AN I NJUNCTION AND THE P LAINTIFF ’ S M OTIONS TO E XPEDITE This matter, transferred to this district from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, comes before th e court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, as well as the plaintiff’s motions for leave to pr oceed in forma pauperis, for judgment on the pleadings, for a hearing, for the undersigned judge to recuse himself, for a preliminary injunction and to expedite consideration of the prelimin ary injunction motion and motion for judgment on the pleadings. 1 As a preliminary matter, the plainti ff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot because the transferor court stated in its tr ansfer order that the plaintiff had paid the filing fee. See Transfer Order (Mar. 25, 2009) . For the reasons stated

1 On July 6, 2009, the plaintiff filed a “Motion to Expedite Issuing the Mandatory Injunction Upon the Court Sua Sponte Invoking the Supreme Court Rule 22 Intervention” and on July 24, 2009, the plaintiff filed a “Motion Upon the Propose[d] Order [to] Move This Court to Sua Sponte Invoke the Supreme Court Rule 22 Interventi on Forthwith Upon Defendants Rule 12(b)(1) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Claim.” Although the precise nature of the relief sought is not clear, it appears that through these motions, the plaintiff requests that the court expedite consideration of the plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction and judgment on the pleadings.2 herein, the court grants the de fendants’ motion to dismiss on re s judicata grounds, and denies all remaining motions as moot. The plaintiff commenced this action in Oc tober 2008, asserting claims arising from a back injury he suffered more than tw o decades ago while he was in prison. 2 See generally Compl. In 1994, as compensation for this inma te-work injury, the plaintiff was awarded $73.57 per month, with the amount to be adjust ed with the federal minimum wage. See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss & Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Recusal (“Defs .’ Mot.”) at 3-4; Compl., Ex. B. The award was confirmed in 1995, at which time the pl aintiff acknowledged and accepted the award by signing a document stating that the plaintiff “acc ept[s] the award amount recorded below as full and final settlement of [his] claim for Inmate Accident Compensation purs uant to the provisions

of 28 C.F.R. Part 301.” Co mpl., Ex. D. In the ensuing decades, the plaintiff filed mu ltiple lawsuits in various districts, including this one, based on the injury he suffered in November 1987 and the subsequent compensation award. Indeed, as the plaintiff has been advi sed before, his complaint – and any complaint arising from this same nucleus of facts – is barre d by the jurisprudential doc trine of res judicata. See Simon v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc ., No. 07-0292 (D.D.C. Feb. 8, 2007) (Mem. Op.) (dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for disparate treatment in connection with the inmate-work injury compensation award on res judicata grounds); Simon v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc ., No. 97- 0757 (D.D.C. Oct. 30, 1997) (Mem. Op.) (entering a merits-based judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plain tiff’s petition for writ of mandamus arising from the November

2 Specifically, in November 1987, the plaintiff slipped and fell while working in the dish room of the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wi sconsin, due to slippery conditions caused by a malfunctioning garbage disposal. Compl. ¶ 5. Th e fall aggravated a pre-existing back condition. Id

.3 1987 injury and subsequent compensation awar d and denying the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction), aff’d 159 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. May 13, 1998). In their motion to dismiss, the defendants have asserted that the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed based on, inter alia , res judicata grounds. See Defs.’ Mot. at 4-7. After the plaintiff failed to submit a timely opposition to the defendants’ motion, the court issued an order advising the plaintiff that his co mplaint would be dismissed if he did not submit a response to the defendants’ motion by June 29, 2009. See Order (May 28, 2009). To date, the plaintiff has not filed a response to the defendants’ motion and ha s not rebutted the defendants’ argument that the complaint underlying this acti on is barred by res judicata. 3 Because the plaintiff’s complaint is plainly barred by the doctrine of res judicata, th e defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint dismissed. Accordingly, it is this 24 th day of August, 2009, hereby

ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED as conceded and the plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED as barred by res judicata; and it is

ORDERED that all other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

RICARDO M. URBINA United States District Judge

3 Indeed, the plaintiff acknowledges in his motion fo r recusal that this court dismissed a complaint filed by the plaintiff in 2007 based on the same nucleus of facts alleged here on res judicata grounds. See Pl.’s Mot. for Sua Sponte Recusal at 1.