UNITED sTATEs 1)1sTR1cT coURT F 1- ,
F0R THE DISTRICT oF CQLUMB!A L E D>

Michael smich, ) MAY 04 mm
Plain¢ifr, § C|;;|g'<tfi»i)'r?;sd<r»iilir:nc'
v. § Civil Action No.
Washington Suburban Sanitary §  ll
Commission et al., )
Defendants. l
MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff has filed a an application to proceed without prepayment of fees and a pro se
complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed in accordance
with the jurisprudential doctrine of res judicata.

The plaintiff, Michael Smith, brings this "complaint for employment discrimination"
against the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission ("WSSC"), and three WSSC employees,
and two investigators employed by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC"). Complaint at l. He seeks monetary damages from the WSSC and its
emp1oyees, and seeks unspecified injunctive relief against the two EEOC investigators. See id.
at 8 11 (A), 9 11 (B). Smith alleges that the three WSSC employees and the two EEOC employees
had knowledge of facts material to his civil rights claims previously filed against the WSSC, id.
1111 8, 10, that the three WSSC employees subjected Smith to discrimination and various torts, ia'.
11 l2, and that "[a]t no time did any of the defendants . . . ever produce any evidence that WSSC

or EEOC were in compliance with any of the federal laws . . . .," id. 11 ll.

Smith, who was fired in 2003 from his job with WSSC, filed employment discrimination
and other claims against WSSC in 2004, which resulted in a judgment being entered in favor of
the defendant. See Smith v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Civil Actions No:
RDB-04-2288, RDB-05-1 153, 2006 WL 4706998, *8 (D. Md. Oct. 4, 2006). To the extent that
Smith has stated any claim of discrimination in this complaint, it is barred by the doctrine of res
judicata, which stands for the proposition that "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." Allen v. McCurry, 4498 U.S. 90, 94 (l980). Therefore, the claims against WSSC
and its employees will be dismissed as barred by res judicata.

The complaint does not state a cognizable claim -- either for employment discrimination
or anything else _ against the two EEOC investigators. These defendants had no employment
relationship with Smith and owed him no duty to "produce any evidence that WSSC or EEOC
were in compliance with any of the federal laws." Complaint 11 ll.

Accordingly, the claims against WSSC and its three employees will be dismissed on res
judicata grounds, and the claims against the two EEOC investigators will be dismissed for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A separate order accompanies this

%a»€/§ %e

Date:  )_ 5’/ 101 9 Uni{ed States District Judge

memorandum opinion.

