United States District Court, District of Columbia
STEVEN H. HALL, Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES
E. BOASBERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro
se Plaintiff Steven H. Hall has filed a litany of
lawsuits related to his employment with, and 2013 termination
from, the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the
2015 settlement agreement concluding those affairs. In fact,
a few months ago, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and
separate Order enjoining him from filing future suits
regarding, inter alia, his termination from DHS
without prior leave of this Court. Hall v.
McAleenan, No. 18-461, ECF Nos. 60-61. The current case
does not fall within such proscription because it was filed
before the injunction issued. The Complaint here nonetheless
illustrates the necessity of the injunction, as it
essentially repeats many of the same facts regarding his
tenure and firing, although it admittedly adds a few other
incidents that may have occurred after the settlement
agreement. The Government now moves to dismiss, citing
judicial estoppel, the settlement agreement, and claim
preclusion. Believing this suit no more meritorious than the
others, the Court will grant the Motion.
I.
Background
As was
the case in many of his prior pleadings, Hall favors a
scattershot approach that jumbles myriad facts relating to
various purported claims in one document and then adds
multiple exhibits or appendices containing different facts
and claims. See ECF No. 1 (Complaint) & Exhs. J
(Chronological Facts), K (Legal Standards), L (Legal Basis
for Compensatory and Liquidated Damages). As best the Court
can discern - and based in part on prior Opinions in his
other cases - Hall worked at DHS from August 2010 to November
2013. See Compl. at 4. After complaints about his
behavior surfaced,
DHS placed Hall on administrative leave in 2013. See
ECF No. 12 (Am. Compl.), Exh. N (Facts) at 3. The agency then
indefinitely suspended and eventually terminated him.
Id. at 5. Believing that his firing was the result
of retaliation and discrimination, Hall filed several
complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Id. at 5. He
hired [attorney Rosemary] Dettling to represent him in these
matters. Id. Although Hall settled with DHS during
the administrative process, he believes he was given a poor
deal. See, e.g., ECF No. 28 (Pl. Opp.) at 13-15. His
dissatisfaction with both the underlying agreement and his
representation in the matter has spurred the flurry of
lawsuits that he has filed against both DHS and Dettling.
Hall v. Nielsen, No. 18-461, 2019 WL 1116911, at *1
(D.D.C. March 11, 2019).
In the
current suit, his specific causes of action are best
understood as being set forth in Exhibit K to the Complaint,
titled “Legal Standards.” Indeed, the Complaint
explains that “Plaintiff's stated claims are listed
in Ex. K.” Compl. at 12. That document spells out
twelve separate allegations, many relating to discrimination
and defamation in 2013, some concerning the 2015 settlement
agreement, and others citing subsequent mistreatment,
particularly DHS's placement of Hall on a Do Not Admit
(DNA) List. The Government, not surprisingly, moves to
dismiss.
II.
Legal Standard
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal
of an action where a complaint fails to “state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” Although
“detailed factual allegations” are not necessary
to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The
Court “must treat the complaint's factual
allegations as true and must grant [the] plaintiff ‘the
benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts
alleged.'” Sparrow v. United Air Lines,
Inc., 216 F.3d 111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting
Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C.
Cir. 1979)). It need not accept as true, however, “a
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” or an
inference unsupported by the facts set forth in the
Complaint. Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C.
Cir. 2006) (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
286 (1986)).
Even at
the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, a court can review “documents
attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the
complaint” or “documents upon which the
plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies even if the
document is produced not by the plaintiff in the complaint
but by the defendant in a motion to dismiss.” Ward
v. D.C. Dep't of Youth Rehab. Servs., 768 F.Supp.2d
117, 119 (D.D.C. 2011) (citations omitted); see also
Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 798 F.3d 1119, 1133
(D.C. Cir. 2015) (“A district court may consider a
document that a complaint specifically references without
converting the motion into one for summary judgment.”).
III.
Analysis
In
seeking dismissal here, although the Government has many
weapons at its disposal, its Motion focuses on two:
claim/issue preclusion (in two forms) and judicial estoppel.
The Court will analyze them in turn.
A.
Claim/Issue Preclusion re: Settlement Agreement
At
least two of Hall's causes of action attack the
settlement agreement itself. Despite walking away with $55,
000, he believes himself ill used. Specifically,
“Plaintiff states a claim pertaining to an illegal
settlement breach term agreement (SBTA) from
November 21, 2015, ” Legal Standards at 2 (Claim 7),
and “Plaintiff states a claim pertaining to the
settlement agreement from November 23, 2015.”
Id. (Claim 10). Yet, this Court has previously
concluded that the agreement is valid and was not procured by
any improper means. In a recent Opinion, it explained again
that claims relating to the agreement had already been
rejected: “[B]ecause the validity of the settlement has
been established [in prior litigation], any stand-alone
counts ...