United States District Court, D. Maryland
KATHERINE B. ROBINSON, DANA B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs,
DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendant.
W. Grimm United States District Judge
Katherine B. Robinson, a resident of Virginia, filed the
above-captioned action on September 6, 2016, together with a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2.
Robinson subsequently exercised her right to amend her
Complaint as a matter of course under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1),
adding the Virginia Employment Commission ("Commission))
as a Defendant. Am. Compl., ECF NO.5. Because she appears to
be indigent, Plaintiff Robinson's Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis shall be granted. Co-plaintiff Dana B.
Williams, who also resides in Virginia, did not file a civil
filing fee, nor did he complete a Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. For reasons apparent herein, Dana Williams will not
be required to correct this deficiency, and instead shall be
dismissed without prejudice from this case.
asserts that during her employment at the Department of
Justice Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"),
she was sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor, Don
Ellis, and that she reported this harassment to upper
management and ultimately filed a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC".. Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 1-2. On June 3, 1998, Robinson was
terminated from her job for insubordination and other
misconduct after 25 years of employment at the DEA.
Id. ¶ 13. Her claim for unemployment benefits
was rejected. Id. ¶ 11. Robinson claims that
her job termination and disqualification from receiving
unemployment benefits led to her inability to maintain her
Baltimore rental property, which was placed in receivership
and sold at public auction on February 18,
2014. Id. ¶ 16. She seeks $100
million from her former employer and the Virginia Employment
Commission for the loss of income for wrongful job
termination and damages incurred due to the sale of the
property. Id. ¶ 18.
instant lawsuit closely parallels two previous actions
already adjudicated in this Court. On June 6, 2013, Robinson
filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County, Maryland against the Department of
Justice ("DOJ") and the DEA, solely concerning her
job termination. See Complaint at 1, Robinson v.
Dept. of Justice, et al, No. RWT-13-1945 (D. Md. July 3,
2013), ECF NO.2. On July 3, 2013, the Defendants removed the
case to this Court. Notice of Removal 1, Robinson,
No. RWT-13-1945 (D. Md. July 3, 2013). The Court granted
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Robinson's Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
12(b)(5), and I2(b)(6). Robinson, No. RWT-13-1945,
2014 WL 1255863, at *5 (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2014).
August 19, 2016, Robinson filed a Complaint against her
former employer and the Virginia Employment Commission, the
agency that rejected her unemployment claim. See
Complaint at 2, Robinson, et al. v. Dept. of Justice Drug
Enforcement Admin., et al, No. GJH-16-2931 (D. Md. Aug.
19, 2066), ECF No. 1. That action was dismissed upon initial
review under the doctrine of res judicata. Order at
1, Robinson, No. GJH-16-2931 (D. Md. Sept. 6, 2016),
claims are identical to those raised in No. GJH-16-293..
Where there has been "(1) a final judgment on the merits
in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in
both the earlier and the later suit; and (3) an identity of
parties or their privies in the two suits, " res
judicata is established. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.
v. Beverley, 404 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Meekins v. United Transp. Union, 946 F.2d 1054, 1057
(4th Cir. 1991)). The doctrine of res judicata
"precludes the assertion of a claim after a judgment on
the merits in a prior suit by the same parties on the same
cause of action." Meekins, 946 F.2d at 1057. In
addition, "[n]ot only does res judicata bar claims that
were raised and fully litigated, it prevents litigation of
all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were
previously available to the parties, regardless of whether
they were asserted or determined in the prior
proceeding." Id. (quoting Peugeot Motors of
America, Inc. v. E. Auto Distribs., Inc., 892 F.2d 355,
359 (4th Cir. 1989)).
claims against the DEA and the Commission were fully and
finally adjudicated. Robinson may not attempt to contest her
job termination here.
separate Order shall enter forthwith.
Katherine Robinson states that she has
power of attorney to act on behalf of Dana Williams because
he "is working and job traveling." Am. Compl. 1.
She provides no documents demonstrating that she in fact is
legally permitted to act on Dana Williams's behalf. In
any event, nothing in the pleadings suggests that Dana
Williams is a party to her employment discrimination claim
against the DEA.
 Robinson indicates she sued a bank and
Baltimore City officials in separate actions regarding the
loss of her property. Compl. 1. Certiorari petitions are
pending in those cases before the United States Supreme
Court. See Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of Maryland, No. 15-9346
( S.Ct); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Robinson v.
Mayor of Balt., No. 16-M2 ( ...