Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Watson

United States District Court, District of Columbia

December 19, 2012

In re: Mark J. WATSON.

Page 143

Mark J. Watson, Dallas, TX, pro se.

Fred Elmore Haynes, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Interested Party.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge.

In the latest chapter of pro se Petitioner Mark Watson's crusade against the Department of Labor's temporary 11-1B non-immigrant visa program, he seeks to resurrect the exact claims that have been previously rejected in numerous administrative and judicial fora. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, having been referred the case from this Court, has issued a Report and Recommendation proposing to dismiss the case with prejudice on res judicata grounds. Watson has now submitted his Objections to the Report. Finding that the Report appropriately recommends dismissal, the Court will accept it and grant the Department of Labor's Motion to Dismiss.

I. Background

On November 7, 2011, Watson commenced this miscellaneous matter by filing a document entitled " Docketing Instructions for Application for Writ of Mandamus" and submitting a $46 filing fee. See ECF No. 1.[1] While his " Instructions" and subsequent " Original Petition for Judicial Review" are not entirely comprehensible, as best the Court can discern, he seeks judicial review of the Department of Labor's

Page 144

decision not to investigate several complaints he had lodged with the agency with respect to its 11-1B non-immigrant visa program. See Opp. at 8 (" I, Mark J. Watson, am the petitioner in this judicial review and am aggrieved by the U.S. Department of Labor's implementation of the temporary H-1B nonimmigrant visa program, and its failure to conduct an investigation into the facts of my complaint." ); see also ECF No. 2 (Original Petition).

This Court, as is typical in many miscellaneous matters, referred the case to Magistrate Judge Robinson for full case management. Labor subsequently moved to dismiss the case on January 3, 2012, contending Watson's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Because Labor's defense hinges on Watson's prior litigation, Magistrate Judge Robinson included a lengthy background section in her Report setting forth Watson's numerous legal challenges to the H-1B visa program. See Report at 2-3, 7-9. The tortuous history of Watson's complaints is also summarized in a February 2010 decision by a federal court in the Eastern District of Texas:

In 2003, Petitioner Mark J. Watson (" Watson" ) filed complaints with the Wage and Hour Division (" WHD" ) of the Department of Labor (" DOL" ) alleging violations of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the " Act" ). Watson's complaints pertained to the temporary employment of aliens in certain specialty occupations. See 8 U.S.C. ยงยง 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(B) and 1182(n).
...
Watson alleged that he was discriminated against by EDS, the Bank, and IBM under the H-1B provisions because he was displaced by or had not been hired because of the employment of H1B workers. The WHD of DOL determined that there was no reasonable cause to investigate Watson's allegations. Watson was notified that the determination of " no reasonable cause" for an investigation was not subject to appeal. After Watson was notified of the decision not to investigate, Watson requested an administrative hearing of his EDS complaint. Watson then requested hearings regarding his complaints against the Bank and IBM. In each case, various Administrative Law Judges granted summary judgment to EDS, the Bank, and IBM.
Watson then appealed each of these decisions to the Board. After consolidation of EDS and the Bank's cases, the Board, on May 31, 2005, issued its final decision declining review. On October 20, 2006, the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.