courts “may raise the res judicata preclusion defense sua sponte”
How later courts described this case
- courts “may raise the res judicata preclusion defense sua sponte”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
KEVIN DONNELL MURPHY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01827 (UNA)
)
OLIVIA BASTIAMPILLAI, )
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and
Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s IFP
Application is granted, and for the reasons explained below, this matter is dismissed.
Plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, sues an official associated with the Federal Aviation
Administration (“FAA”). See Compl. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant and the FAA engaged
in “unauthorized purging of grant applications” that he submitted to the FAA on behalf of himself
and his company, Alkebulan Airlines Corporation. See id. at 16. He contends that this purging
violated the Federal Records Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. See id. at 9–12, 16–22. He demands damages and equitable relief. See id. at 22–
26.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata. “The doctrine of res judicata prevents
repetitious litigation involving the same causes of action or the same issues.” I.A.M. Nat'l Pension
Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 946 (D.C. Cir. 1983). And a court may dismiss a
claim or issue sua sponte when it is on notice that that the claim or issue has been previously
decided, in an effort to prevent “unnecessary judicial waste.” Walker v. Seldman, 471 F. Supp. 2d
106, 114 n.12 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000) (internal
quotation marks omitted)); see accord Rosendahl v. Nixon, 360 Fed. Appx. 167, 168 (D.C. Cir.
2010) (courts “may raise the res judicata preclusion defense sua sponte”) (citing Brown v. Dist. of
Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1285–86 (D.C. Cir. 2008)) (other citation omitted). More specifically,
res judicata and collateral estoppel “are so integral to the administration of the courts that a court
may invoke [them] sua sponte[,]” Fenwick v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 2d 108, 116 (D.D.C.
2010) (alterations in original) (quoting McGee v. District of Columbia, 646 F. Supp. 2d 115, 123
(D.D.C. 2009); citing Stanton v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 127 F.3d 72, 77 (D.C. Cir.
1997)), because the Court bears a responsibility to “conserve judicial resources, avoid inconsistent
results, engender respect for judgments of predictable and certain effect, and to prevent serial
forum-shopping and piecemeal litigation[,]” Hardison v. Alexander, 655 F.2d 1281, 1288 (D.C.
Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff already unsuccessfully filed a substantially similar, if not identical, lawsuit against
the same Defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. See Murphy v.
Bastiampillai, No. 24-cv-01808 (D. Md. filed June 21, 2024) (“Murphy I”), at Complaint, ECF
No. 1; see id. at Memorandum Opinion (Sept. 25, 2025), ECF No. 47; Order (Sept. 25, 2025)
(granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment), ECF No. 48.
Whether a case is duplicative turns on whether the two cases at issue share the same
“nucleus of facts.” Drake v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Page
v. United States, 729 F. 2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). And a final judgment on the merits of an
action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating claims that “were or could have been
raised in that action.” Drake, 291 F.3d at 66 (emphasis in original), quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449
U.S. 90, 94 (1980); see also Apotex, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 393 F.3d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir.
2004). Upon review, the Complaint filed in Murphy I unquestionably arises from the very same
facts raised in the Complaint filed in this matter. The final adjudication of Murphy I, which was
affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 26, 2026, see Murphy I at
Judgment of USCA, ECF No. 14; Mandate (Mar. 20, 2026), ECF No. 15, thus bears preclusive
effect on this matter.
For these reasons, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case, are dismissed. 1 A separate
Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: June 18, 2026
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
1
Plaintiff is forewarned that duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding IFP are also
subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Sturdza v.
United Arab Emirates, No. 09-0699, 2009 WL 1033269, at *1 n.2 (D.D.C. April 16, 2009), aff’d,
108 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 05, 1997); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th
Cir. 1997); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir.1995); Pittman v. Moore, 980
F.2d 994, 994–95 (5th Cir.1993)).