FILED

UI\HTED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT FEB 2 l 2014
FoR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA c‘¢",'jr'fs» §df't-hf;';fifsi;=rfig §fa»(i:l;r|:»:g¥
a

David Earl Wattleton,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr.,

\/\J\é\é\/\J\J\/\J\J

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff is an individual civilly committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 4243 at the
Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. He has submitted an "Emergency Application
for Expedited Mandatory Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment and
Damages," construed as a complaint, in which he again claims that "the term ‘writ of habeas
corpus’ as used in sub-section (g) of [18 U.S.C. § 4247] is unconstitutionally vague and should
be stuck down . . . ." Ia'. at 1. The plaintiff has already unsuccessfully litigated this issue. See
Waltleton v. Hola’er, No. 13-0375, 2013 WL 1222943 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2013), a/j"d, 534 Fed.
Appx. 3 (D,C. Cir. 2013). Hence, this case will be dismissed as procedurally barred.
Under the principle of res jua'z`cala, a final judgment on the merits in one action "bars any

further claim based on the same ‘nucleus of facts’ . . . ." Page v. UnitedState.s‘, 729 F.2d 818,
820 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Experl Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1234 (D.C. Cir.
1977)). Res judicata bars the relitigation "of issues that were or could have been raised in [the
prior] action." Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing

Allen v. McCur/”y, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)); see I.A.M Nal ’l Pensz`on Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg.
l

Co., 723 F.2d 944, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that resjadicala "forecloses all that which might
have been litigated previously"); accord Crowder v. Bierman, Geesing, and Ward LLC, 713 F.
Supp. 2d 6, 10 (D.D.C. 2010). Although res judicata is an affirmative defense that typically
must be pled, courts "may raise the res judicata preclusion defense sua sponte,” Rosendahl v.
Nixon, 360 Fed. Appx. 167, 168 (D.C. Cir. 2()10) (citing Arizona v. Call_'fornia, 530 U.S. 392,
412~13 (2000); Brown v. D.C., 514 F.3d 1279, 1285-86 (D.C. Cir. 2()08)), and a "district court
may apply res judicata upon taking judicial notice of [a] [party’s] previous case," Tinsley v.
Eqaifax Credit Info. Serv’s, Inc., No. 99-7031, 1999 WL 50672O (D.C. Cir. June 2, 1999) (per
curiam) (citing Gullo v. Veterans Cooperative Housl`ng Ass'n, 269 F.2d 517 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (per
curiam)). Res judicata therefore forecloses this action.'

?zwl  

yUnitefil/States District Judge

Date: january 517 ,2014

l A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

2

