Court Opinion

ID: 9399841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 16:11:54.352517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.186012
License: Public Domain

June 6, 2023
                                                 Supreme Court

                                                 No. 2022-130-Appeal.
                                                 (PC 22-890)

      Gary V. Jenkins             :

                 v.               :

City of East Providence et al.    :

        NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
        before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
        are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
        Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
        Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
        Email:      opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov,     of     any
        typographical or other formal errors in order that
        corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
                                                         Supreme Court

                                                         No. 2022-130-Appeal.
                                                         (PC 22-890)

           Gary V. Jenkins               :

                   v.                    :

     City of East Providence et al.      :

          Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Lynch Prata, JJ.

                                   OPINION

      Justice Goldberg, for the Court. This case came before the Supreme Court

on February 23, 2023, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show

cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The

plaintiff, Gary V. Jenkins, appeals pro se from the denial of his petition for writ of

mandamus and dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.1 After reviewing the parties’

memoranda, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the issues

raised by this appeal may be decided at this time. For the reasons set forth herein,

we affirm the order of the Superior Court.

1
 Because the plaintiff elected not to appear for oral argument, this case is decided
on the basis of the briefs.
                                        -1-
                                  Facts and Travel

      The plaintiff was employed by the City of East Providence (the City) for over

twenty-four years. Sometime in 2018, plaintiff’s employment with the City ended.

Following plaintiff’s termination, plaintiff and the City signed a Memorandum of

Agreement (the agreement). The agreement contained various provisions, including

plaintiff’s retirement benefits, the issuance of a corrected W-2 to reflect plaintiff’s

injured-on-duty status, and a provision explaining that enforcement of the agreement

was subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining

agreement.    The plaintiff attempted to rescind the agreement, and the City

subsequently filed a petition to enforce the agreement in the Superior Court. After

a six-day bench trial, the trial justice found that a valid, binding, and enforceable

agreement was reached between the parties, and judgment was entered in favor of

the City. The plaintiff appealed the judgment, but the appeal was dismissed as

untimely.2

      The plaintiff then initiated the instant case by filing a complaint and a petition

for writ of mandamus against the City and the East Providence Firefighters, IAFF,

AFL-CIO, Local 850 (the Union), on February 14, 2022, asking the Superior Court

2
  The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed because it was not filed within twenty days of
the date of the entry of judgment as required under Article I, Rule 4(a) of the
Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                                         -2-
to abrogate the agreement regarding the period of his injured-on-duty status.3 The

plaintiff also requested corrected tax documentation reflecting his injured-on-duty

benefits.

      The Union objected to the petition for writ of mandamus and filed a motion

to dismiss. The Union argued that the Superior Court previously decided that

plaintiff was bound by the agreement, and, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to

relief under any set of conceivable facts. The Union further maintained that, even if

plaintiff was not provided with proper tax documentation, only the City may furnish

tax documentation, and, as a result, plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of

action against the Union.

      The City joined in the Union’s objection and also filed a motion to dismiss.

The City argued that these issues had been previously adjudicated, and further, that

the City did in fact produce an amended W-2 to reflect plaintiff’s injured-on-duty

status. It is the content of these W-2s that is at issue in this case.

      A hearing was held on March 4, 2022, on plaintiff’s petition for writ of

mandamus and defendants’ motion to dismiss. The trial justice explained that

because the agreement mandated that enforcement was subject to grievance and

arbitration procedures, the court lacked the authority to proceed. The trial justice

3
  The defendants represented, and the trial justice noted, that plaintiff has filed, in
total, seven separate civil actions presenting the same issues that are raised in this
case.
                                           -3-
also concluded that plaintiff failed to establish the three required elements that would

entitle him to a writ of mandamus and denied the petition. As a result, the trial justice

granted defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(1). The trial justice,

relying on the doctrine of res judicata, also granted defendants’ motion to dismiss

based on Rule 12(b)(6). The plaintiff appealed.

                                 Standard of Review

      “[T]he sole function of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the

complaint.” Narragansett Electric Company v. Minardi, 21 A.3d 274, 277 (R.I.

2011) (quoting Laurence v. Sollitto, 788 A.2d 455, 456 (R.I. 2002)). “In passing on

a Rule 12(b) dismissal, this Court applies the same standard as the trial justice.” Id.

at 278. “We thus are confined to the four corners of the complaint and must assume

all allegations are true, resolving any doubts in plaintiff’s favor.” Id. “A motion to

dismiss may be granted only ‘if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that a plaintiff

would not be entitled to relief under any conceivable set of facts[.]’” Id. (quoting

Estate of Sherman v. Almeida, 747 A.2d 470, 473 (R.I. 2000)).

      “[A] motion under Rule 12(b)(1) questions a court’s authority to adjudicate a

particular controversy before it.” Barnes v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority,

242 A.3d 32, 36 (R.I. 2020) (quoting Boyer v. Bedrosian, 57 A.3d 259, 270 (R.I.

2012)). “This Court reviews de novo whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction

over a particular controversy.” Id. (quoting Long v. Dell, Inc., 984 A.2d 1074, 1078

                                          -4-
(R.I. 2009)). “In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court is not limited to the face

of the pleadings. A court may consider any evidence it deems necessary to settle the

jurisdictional question.” Id. (quoting Boyer, 57 A.3d at 270).

      “A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy.” Muschiano v. Travers, 973 A.2d

515, 520 (R.I. 2009) (quoting New England Development, LLC v. Berg, 913 A.2d

363, 368 (R.I. 2007)).

             “This Court clearly and repeatedly has established the
             requirements for issuing such a writ: it ‘will be issued only
             when: (1) the petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief
             sought, (2) the respondent has a ministerial duty to
             perform the requested act without discretion to refuse, and
             (3) the petitioner has no adequate remedy at law.’” Id.
             (quoting Berg, 913 A.2d at 368).

We “will not disturb the findings of a trial justice sitting without a jury in a civil

matter unless such findings are clearly erroneous or unless the trial justice

misconceived or overlooked material evidence or unless the decision fails to do

substantial justice between the parties.” Id. at 521 (quoting Union Station Associates

v. Rossi, 862 A.2d 185, 193 (R.I. 2004)).

                                       Analysis

      We note at the outset that although plaintiff has submitted a memorandum of

law to this Court, he has not provided any meaningful discussion of the issues on

appeal as required by Article I, Rule 12A of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate

                                         -5-
Procedure.4 “This Court has consistently held that ‘[s]imply stating an issue for

appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the

issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and

therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.’” Barnes, 242 A.3d at 36-37 (quoting

Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248, 252 (R.I. 2008)). Furthermore, this Court “will

not search the record to substantiate that which a party alleges.” Riley v. Stone, 900

A.2d 1087, 1098 n.14 (R.I. 2006). Although we have repeatedly recognized that

“litigants have the right to represent themselves as pro se litigants, ‘the courts of this

state cannot and will not entirely overlook established rules of procedure * * *.’”

Berard v. Ryder Student Transportation Services, Inc., 767 A.2d 81, 84 (R.I. 2001)

(quoting Gray v. Stillman White Co., 522 A.2d 737, 741 (R.I. 1987)). Both sides

have a legitimate expectation of a level playing field.

      In the case at bar, plaintiff has failed to present any argument grounded in

specific facts or law to support his claim that the trial justice erred in denying his

petition for writ of mandamus and dismissing his complaint. The plaintiff asserts

that: “[j]udicial error may have occurred due to Rule 9(c) CONDITIONS

4
 Article I, Rule 12A(1) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure requires
an appellant to “file a statement of the case and a summary of the issues proposed to
be argued * * *.”

                                          -6-
PRECEDENT and Rule 9(d) OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OR ACT * * *.”5 However,

plaintiff fails to develop this argument beyond this conclusory assertion.

Furthermore, plaintiff avers that “[r]es [j]udicata is not applicable to precedent

condition,” but he once again fails to provide any legal or factual support for this

assertion. Additionally, a review of the record reveals that these arguments were not

raised in the trial court, and are therefore deemed waived.

       As we have explained previously, “we will not give life to arguments the

plaintiff has failed to develop on his own.” McMahon v. Deutsche Bank National

Trust Company, 131 A.3d 175, 176 (R.I. 2016). Given the cursory nature of

plaintiff’s Rule 12A Statement, and its failure to inform this Court of the issues

argued on appeal, we deem these issues waived.            Furthermore, although the

plaintiff’s papers are less than clear, it is undisputed that this case is barred by res

judicata.6 The issues raised in this case have been finally adjudicated and have been

laid to rest.

5
  Rule 9 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure governs pleading special
matters. Rule 9(c) states, “[i]n pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions
precedent, it is sufficient to aver generally that all conditions precedent have been
performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made
specifically and with particularity.” Rule 9(d) states, “[i]n pleading an official
document or official act it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued, or the
act done in compliance with law.”
6
  Res judicata is a legal doctrine which “makes a prior judgment in a civil action
between the same parties conclusive with regard to any issues that were litigated in
the prior action, or that could have been presented and litigated therein.” ElGabri v.
                                         -7-
                                    Conclusion

      For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the order of the Superior Court is

affirmed. The papers may be returned to the Superior Court.

      Justice Long did not participate.

Lekas, 681 A.2d 271, 275 (R.I. 1996). “In order for res judicata to apply in a
subsequent proceeding, four elements must be met: (1) identity of the parties; (2)
identity of the issues; (3) identity of the claims for relief; and (4) finality of the
judgment.” Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132, 1138 (R.I. 2001).

                                          -8-
                                              STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
                                         SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
                                               Licht Judicial Complex
                                                 250 Benefit Street
                                               Providence, RI 02903

                                     OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case                            Gary V. Jenkins v. City of East Providence et al.

                                         No. 2022-130-Appeal.
Case Number
                                         (PC 22-890)

Date Opinion Filed                       June 6, 2023

Justices                                 Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Lynch Prata, JJ.

Written By                               Associate Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg

Source of Appeal                         Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court        Associate Justice Linda Rekas Sloan

                                         For Plaintiff:

                                         Gary Jenkins, pro se
Attorney(s) on Appeal                    For Defendants:

                                         Matthew T. Oliverio, Esq.
                                         Joseph F. Penza, Jr., Esq.

SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)