Skip to main content

BALL v. DOES (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dennis Andrew BALL, Appellant v. John DOES 1-X, et al., Appellees

No. 19-5032

Decided: June 05, 2019

BEFORE: Tatel and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge Dennis Andrew Ball, Pro Se R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees


This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by the appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order, filed January 18, 2019, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant's complaint under the doctrine of res judicata. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (“Under res judicata, 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.”). Appellant's current and prior cases involved the same parties and shared a common “nucleus of facts.” Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“Whether two cases implicate the same cause of action turns on whether they share the same ‘nucleus of facts.’ ”). Res judicata thus bars appellant from relitigating not only matters determined in his previous litigation but also ones that he could have raised. See Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1224, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, to the extent appellant sought to challenge the dismissal order issued in his prior case, the district court properly concluded that it lacked authority to review decisions of another federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1) (Appeals from reviewable decisions of a district court must be taken “to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

Per Curiam

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law
BALL v. DOES (2019)

Docket No: No. 19-5032

Decided: June 05, 2019

Court: United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard