Case Name: William J. HIGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Charles O. Rossotti, Internal Revenue Commissioner, Laurence Velaquez, Internal Revenue Service, Appeals Dep., Directors, Officers, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-10
Citations: 114 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 03-6241
Parties: William J. HIGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Charles O. Rossotti, Internal Revenue Commissioner, Laurence Velaquez, Internal Revenue Service, Appeals Dep., Directors, Officers, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: OAKES, JACOBS, and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
William J. HIGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Charles O. Rossotti, Internal Revenue Commissioner, Laurence Velaquez, Internal Revenue Service, Appeals Dep., Directors, Officers, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-6241.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 10, 2004.
William J. Higgins, Glen Cove, N.Y, for Appellant, pro se.
(On submission: Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, (Charles Brick-en, Robert L. Baker, Attorneys, Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.)), for Appellee.
PRESENT: OAKES, JACOBS, and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
William J. Higgins appeals a final order by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bloom, J.), entered on August 14, 2003, dismissing sua sponte the complaint. We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural history and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.
As the district court found, this complaint is essentially identical an earlier complaint that the court dismissed on May 27, 2003. The district court correctly dismissed Higgins complaint, as it was barred by res judicata, see Allen v. McCurry 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980); N.L.R.B. v. United Technologies Corp., 706 F.2d 1254, 1260 (2d Cir.1983).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Additionally, we deny the Government's motion pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 38 for sanctions against Higgins. We note with disapproval Higgins' practice of filing meritless litigation, indeed the district court is now considering whether Higgins will be required to seek the leave of the district court before filing any complaints in the future. We warn Higgins that, while we decline to impose a sanction today, merit-less appeals in the future may lead to the imposition of monetary sanctions and/or leave-to-file requirements in this Court.