NOT PRECEDENT IAL

UNI TE D STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 0

- 2 2 2 5

__________

S E A N M

. D O N A H U E

, Appellant

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LAB OR AND INDUSTRY;

PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK SITE ADMINISTRATOR;

PENN SYLVANIA H UMAN R ELATIONS COMMISSION;

LUZERNE SCHUYLKILL COUNTIES WORKFORCE

I N V E STMENT BOARD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States Di strict Court

fo r t he M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil A c tio n No. 3 : 1 9

- c v

- 0 1 8 5 9 )

District Judge: Ho norable M a l a c h y E

. M a n n i o n

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

F e b r u a r y 9

, 2 0 2 1

Before: G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. , K R A U S E a n d B I B A S

, Circuit Judges

(Op in ion filed : Feb ruary 18, 2021 )

___________

OPINION *

__ _________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition i s not an opinion of the full C o u rt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5 .7 does not2 S e a n M

. D o n a h u e

, p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e

, appeals an order of the United States

District Court for the M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a dismissing h i s a m e n d e d complaint

for failure to s t a t e a c l a i m

. We wi ll affirm

.

I n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 9

, D o n a h u e

, w h o h a s i n i t i a t e d a t l e a s t t w o d o z e n a c t i o n s i n f e d e r a l

c o u r t s i n c e 2 0 1 3

, f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r

, t h e

P e n n s y l v a n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r a n d I n d u s t r y

, t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a H u m a n R e l a t i o n s

C o m m i s s i o n

, t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a C a r e e r L i n k S i t e A d m i n i s t r a t o r

, a n d t he E x e c u t i v e

D i r e c t o r o f t h e L u z e r n e / S c h u y l k i l l C o u n t i e s W o r k f o r c e I n v e s t m e n t B o a r d

. ( E C F 1

. ) A s

w i t h s e v e r a l o f h i s p r i o r a c t i o n s

, t h e c o m p l a i n t c e n t e r e d o n D o n a h u e ’ s b e l i e f t h a t h e w a s

e n t i t l e d t o pre ferential job plac ement benefits that are afforded t o vetera ns

. T h e m a t t e r

w a s r e f e r r e d t o a M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e

, w h o

, a f t e r i d e n t i f y i n g s e v e r a l f l a w s i n the c o m p l a i n t

,

r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t i t b e d i s m i s s e d w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o D o n a h u e “ e n d e a v o r i n g t o c o r r e c t

t h e d e f e c t s c i t e d i n t h i s r e p o r t

. ” ( E C F 5

, a t 2 0

. ) T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d o p t e d t h a t

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n

. ( E C F 8

. )

D o n a h u e n e x t f i l e d a l e n g t h y a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t

, a g a i n a l l e g i n g v i o l a t i o n s o f h i s

constitutional r i g h t s a n d f e d e r a l l a w s

. T h e c o m p l a i n t

, w h i c h d i d n o t n a m e n e w o r

d i f f

e r e n t d e f e n d a n t s

, p r i m a r i l y a s s e r t e d t h a t D o n a h u e w a s e n t i t l e d t o p r e f e r e n t i a l j o b

p l a c e m e n t a s a v e t e r a n a n d t h a t h i s s t a t e c o u r t c o n v i c t i o n s f o r h a r a s s m e n t o f g o v e r n m e n t

e m p l o y e e s w e r e t h e r e s u l t o f “ t r u m p e d u p a c t s o f r e t a l i a t i o n i n t e n d e d t o f a b r i c a t e a

j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r h a v i n g d e n i e d [ h i m ] f e d e r a l l y f u n d e d v e t e r a n s p r i o r i t y j o b p l a c e m e n t

cons titute binding precedent.3 s e r v i c e s

. ” A m e n d e d C o m p ’ l

, 4

. T h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e a g a i n r e c o m m e n d e d d i s m i s s a l o f

t h e c o m p l a i n t

, explain i n g t h a t i t c o n t a i n e d s e v e r a l d e f e c t s

. ( E C F 1 4

. ) Th ose d efe cts

include d Donahue ’ s failur e to include a short and plain statement of claim s, h i s attempt to

relitigate matter s whic h had be en resolve d in prior cases

, his effort to brin g a civil rights

acti on premised on still

- va li d state court c onv iction s

, his ass ertion of claims barred by

Eleventh Amendment immu nity

, a n d h i s a t t e m p t t o a s s e r t a p r i v a t e r i g h t o f a c t i o n f o r

d i s p a r a t e treatment c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t u n d e r T i t l e V I o f t h e C i v i l

R i g h t s A c t o f 1 9 6 4

. O v e r D o n a h u e ’ s o b j e c t i o n s ( E C F 1 5 )

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d o p t e d t h e

R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d d i s m i s s e d t h e c o m p l a i n t w i t h o u t l e a v e t o a m e n d ( E C F

1 9 )

. S e e 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i i )

. D o n a h u e a p p e a l e d

. ( E C F 2 0

. )

We have juris dicti on pursua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1291

, a n d w e review d e n o v o the

District Court’s order dismissing t he complaint

. See Allah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220,

223 (3d Cir. 2000)

. We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Fairview

Twp . v. EPA , 773 F.2d 517, 525 n .15 (3d Cir. 1985)

.

I n h i s b r i e f o n a p p e a l

, D o n a h u e d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e a n y o f the g r o u n d s t h a t t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e l i e d o n i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t

. I n d e e d

, h e does not set

forth any specific argument as to how th e D i s t r i c t C o u r t er red or w hy the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s

c onclusions sh ould n ot be affirmed. R a t h e r

, r e l y i n g a l m o s t e xclusively o n 3 8 U

. S

. C

.

§ 4 2 1 5

, D o n a h u e a r g u e s o n l y t h a t

, a s a v e t e r a n

, h e i s e n t i t l e d t o p r e f e r e n t i a l j o b

p l a c e m e n t s e r v i c e s

. T h e r e f o r e

, a s t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r u r g e s

, D o n a h u e

h a s effecti vely for f e it e d any challenge to the District Court’s r ulings

. S e e M.S. by &4 through Hall v. Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dist. , 969 F.3d 120, 124 n.2 (3d Cir. 2020)

(holding that claims were forfeited where appellant failed to r ai se them in her opening

brief) ; see a lso Barn a v . Bd. of Sch. Dir s

. of Panther Valley Sch . Dist. , 877 F.3d 136,

145

- 46 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[W]e have consistently refused to consider ill

- developed

arguments or those not properly rai sed and discussed in the ap pe llate briefing.”).

Although we cons true Donahu e ’s pro se filings liberally, this policy does not pre vent us

from applying thi s d octrine to his appeal. 1 See, e.g.

, Emerson v. Thiel Coll. , 296 F .3d

184, 190 n.5 (3d Cir. 2002) ( per curiam)

.

1 Ev e n if we considered his claims desp ite his failure to raise th em , we would a g ree with

the District Court’s dis missal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The D istrict C ourt

correctly concluded o n t h e f a c e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t tha t m a n y o f t h e claims r a i s e d in the

amended complaint a r e b a r r e d u n d e r t h e d o c t r i n e o f res judi ca ta

. See Turne r v. Crawford

Square A partments II I , L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 548 (3d Cir. 2006)

. Notably, i n b o t h t h e

u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n a n d the previous c a s e s b r o u g h t b y D o n a h u e

, h e s o u g h t to sue some of

the same d efenda n t s , under the same constitu tion al prov is ions and federal la ws,

cha lleng ing h i s state c o u r t convictions a nd h i s a l l e g e d i n ability to o b t a i n p r e f e r e n t i a l j o b

p l a c e m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s

. See Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. D ist. , 7 67 F.3d 247, 277 (3d

Cir. 2014) (noti ng we take a “b r oad view” when consi de ring what constitut es the sa me

cause of action, and whether res judicata applies turns on the “essenti al similarity” of the

underlying events giving rise to the legal claims)

. W e h a v e a f f

i r m e d t h e d i s m i s s a l o f

t h o s e p r i o r c i v i l a c t i o n s

, see , e .g.

, Donah ue v. Acosta

, 7 8 9 F

. A p p ’ x 3 2 4

, 3 2 7

- 2 8 (3d Cir.

20 19) (affirming dis missal of a c t i o n challenging Donahue’s state court conv ictions and

seekin g order directing defendants to pr o vide him with veteran priority job referrals)

,

a nd t h e r e i s n o d i s p u t e a b o u t th e p a r t i e s ’ c a p a c i t y t o s u e o r b e s u e d i n f e d e r a l c o u r t

. To

the extent any claims o r p a r t i e s may be slightly d ifferent, it is clear that D o n a h u e could

have bro ught th e present claims in h i s e a r l i e r a c t i o n s

. S e e In re Mullar k ey , 536 F.3d 215,

225 (3d Cir. 20 08) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t r e s j u d i c a t a b a r s c l a i m s t h a t w e r e b r o u g h t

, o r c o u l d

h a v e b e e n b r o u g h t

, i n a p r e v i o u s a c t i o n )

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, a s t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e e x p l a i n e d

, D o n a h u e ’ s a t t e m p t t o c h a l l e n g e

h i s c o n v i c t i o n s i s b a r r e d b y Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 47 7 (19 94), which pre cludes a

claim un der § 1983 w here a judgment in t he plaintiff ’ s favor would necessarily imply the

invalidity of a conviction unless the convicti on has been overturned

. I n a d d i t i o n

, t h e5 F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l a f f

i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f the D i s t r i c t C o u r t

.

E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t b a r r e d D o n a h u e ’ s c l a i m s f o r d a m a g e s a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e a g e n c i e s

a n d s t a t e o f f

i c i a l s a c t i n g i n t h e i r o f f

i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s

. See Pa. Fed’n of Sportsmen’s Clubs,

Inc. v. Hess , 297 F.3d 310, 323 (3d Ci r. 2002 ) (“[T]he Eleventh Amendment ... has been

interpreted t o render states

— and, by extensi on , sta te agencies an d depart ments and

officials w hen the state is the real party in interest

— generally immune from suit by

private parties in federal court.”)

. F i n a l l y

, e v e n c o n s t r u i n g D o n a h u e ’ s a m e n d e d

c o m p l a i n t l i b e r a l l y

, w e conclude t h a t h i s c o n c l u s o r y a l l e g a t i o n s o f T i t l e V I v i o l a t i o n s d i d

n o t s t a t e a p l a u s i b l e c l a i m f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n

. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009).