Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Murray v. Bush

United States District Court, District of Columbia

December 19, 2014

SANDRA MURRAY, Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE BUSH, Defendant

SANDRA MURRAY, Plaintiff, Pro se, St. Francis, WI.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ketanji Brown Jackson, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon review of plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The application will be granted but the complaint will be dismissed.

The plaintiff has filed -- and lost -- an employment discrimination suit against her former employer and former supervisor in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. See Murray v. Maysteel Corp., No. 2:03-cv-1042 (E.D. Wisc. filed Jan. 28, 2004) (dismissing action with prejudice as time-barred), aff'd, 111 F.App'x 432 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Murray v. Bush, No. 06-C-0781, 2007 WL 2207909 (E.D. Wisc. July 30, 2007). That court also has imposed a filing ban and has directed her to " cease her repeated filings requesting that the Court lift the filing ban so she may litigate the same or similar claims that she has litigated against Maysteel and Bush." Compl., Ex. (Decision and Order, Murray v. Bush, No. 06-C-781 (E.D. Wisc. filed Aug. 27, 2013) at 2).

Insofar as the plaintiff's claims have been litigated in a prior civil action, the Court dismisses this action. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (" A final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action."). Furthermore, the plaintiff's apparent effort to evade the filing ban will not be tolerated. Cf. Book v. Mendoza, No. 3:07-cv-1468, 2012 WL 201732, at *4 (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2012) (recognizing plaintiff's " current effort to circumvent this [filing] ban, approaching the Court by letter"); McNeil v. United States, No. CV-05-211, 2005 WL 1915842, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2005) (" In yet another effort to circumvent the pre-filing review orders issued by this court, plaintiff filed an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. That action has now been transferred here . . . .").

An Order is issued separately.

DISMISSAL ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED.

This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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