Summary
noting that a pro se litigant “may not represent the interests of other parties”
Summary of this case from Lamont v. Proskauer Rose, LLPOpinion
No. 08-5478.
Filed On: April 10, 2009.
BEFORE: Henderson, Brown, and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly held that appellant's claims directly challenging his termination and working conditions are barred by res judicata. See Apotex, Inc. v. Food and Drug Admin., 393 F.3d 210, 217-18 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (barring further claims based on the same "nucleus of facts"). Res judicata bars claims "that were or could have been raised" in a prior action. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980); Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Appellant has filed other cases against the Department of the Treasury arising from the same set of circumstances, and received a final judgment on the merits.See Ivey v. Paulson, 222 Fed. Appx. 815 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Appellant has failed to establish that the Department of the Treasury had any duty to inform him of a right to pursue an administrative remedy before the Federal Labor Relations Authority, because he has not alleged that the Department of the Treasury committed an unfair labor practice within the Authority's purview. See 5 U.S.C. § 7716(a). The record does not show that the Authority has issued any final decision with regard to appellant, but even if it had, review would lie in an appropriate court of appeals, not in district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).
The district court correctly denied appellant's motion to join additional plaintiffs, because appellant, a pro se litigant, may not represent the interests of other parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 ("parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel");Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 n. 7 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (non-member of any bar "may appear pro se but is not qualified to appear . . . as counsel for others").
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.