Court Opinion

ID: 9831324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:40.481077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.727023
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1438      Doc: 20         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1438

        UNDER SEAL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        VIRGINIA BOARD OF MEDICINE,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01406-LO-JFA)

        Submitted: August 21, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam.

        Under Seal, Appellant Pro Se. James Edward Rutkowski, Assistant Attorney General,
        OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1438       Doc: 20          Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Appellant Under Seal appeals the district court’s orders dismissing this civil case as

        barred by res judicata and denying reconsideration. Under federal law, “res judicata applies

        when [there is]: ‘(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the

        cause of action in both the earlier and the later suit; and (3) an identity of the parties or

        their privies in the two suits.’” T.H.E. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 54 F.4th 805, 820 n.7 (4th Cir.

        2022) (quoting SAS Inst. Inc. v. World Programming Ltd., 874 F.3d 370, 378 (4th Cir.

        2017)). Although res judicata is “an affirmative defense ordinarily lost if not timely

        raised,” the Supreme Court has noted that it may be appropriate for the district court to

        raise the issue sua sponte when “‘a court is on notice that it has previously decided the

        issue presented.’” Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 410-12 (2000).

               The district court determined that its decision in Appellant’s prior federal case was

        a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata. But, in the prior case, the district

        court dismissed the action pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Huffman v.

        Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975), and we affirmed that decision. See Under Seal v. Va.

        Bd. of Med., 829 F. App’x 616 (4th Cir. 2020). As we have explained, “a Younger dismissal

        is plainly not a merits-based judgment.” Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237, 248 n.9 (4th

        Cir. 2006). We therefore conclude that the district court erred in ruling that Appellant’s

        current civil action was barred by res judicata based on the prior federal civil case. 1

               1
                We express no view on the merits or viability of the current civil action, including
        whether Appellant’s claims may be precluded by any rulings in the state proceedings.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1438       Doc: 20          Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s orders and remand to the district court

        for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We grant Appellant’s pending motion

        to seal Appellant’s unredacted filings on appeal. 2 We dispense with oral argument because

        the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

        and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                       VACATED AND REMANDED

               2
                To the extent that Appellant seeks to seal all or any part of the record in the district
        court, Appellant’s motion should be filed in the district court. See 4th Cir. R. 25(c)(2).

                                                       3