Opinion ID: 4533205
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Res Judicata Bars Searcy’s

Text: Claims Against the Agency Res judicata bars parties from litigating claims that could have been raised in an earlier-resolved action. Carson v. Dep’t of Energy, 398 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Case: 19-2217 Document: 41 Page: 7 Filed: 05/11/2020 SEARCY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 7 Specifically, res judicata bars a later claim when (1) the parties are identical or in privity to the parties in a first action, (2) there has been an earlier final judgment on the merits in the first action, and (3) the later claim is based on the same set of transactional facts as those litigated in the first action. Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1052, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Searcy argues that res judicata does not apply to his latest claims because “5 U.S.C. § 3330a is distinct in purpose and scope from . . . 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(l).” Appellant’s Informal Br. ¶ 2. Section 3330a establishes a substantive cause of action under the VEOA for preference eligible veterans and section 7701 sets out Board appellate procedures. Searcy’s argument seems to be contending that, although he previously litigated his substantive rights related to his 1977 dismissal from the agency, his procedural rights were violated by the Board’s sua sponte application of the doctrine of res judicata in this case. His argument fails. The Board followed an appropriate procedure prior to applying res judicata to find that it did not have jurisdiction over Searcy’s case. Specifically, the Board informed Searcy of its suspicion that his claims may be barred and allowed Searcy to respond. Decision on Appeal, 2017 MSPB LEXIS 1239, at –3. This process was sufficient to protect Searcy’s process rights. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985) (“The essential requirements of due process . . . are notice and an opportunity to respond.”). And, once the Board determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Searcy’s case, Searcy had no additional rights under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1), which applies only in cases where the Board has jurisdiction. Searcy’s attempt, moreover, to distinguish this action from his earlier cases fails. Here, he once again raises the same set of facts as in his four earlier appeals and brings the same substantive claims against the same party. See Case: 19-2217 Document: 41 Page: 8 Filed: 05/11/2020 8 SEARCY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Ammex, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1055. Accordingly, we, once again, hold that Searcy’s claims against the agency are barred by res judicata.