Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CHYRDONNA WHITE v. RENEE COATES

* * * * * * *

CIVIL NO. Y-99-2248

Chyrdonna White, pro se Plaintiff. Honorable Lynne A. Battaglia, Esquire, United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland and Charles J. Peters, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, counsel for Defendant. YOUNG, Joseph H., Senior United States District Judge Date: December ___, 1999

MEMORANDUM OPINION I. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. In January 1998, the Plaintiff, Chyrdonna White, filed

a pro se complaint in Maryland District Court alleging employment discrimination against the Defendant, Renee Coates, in her individual capacity. Coates removed the case to this Court,

which dismissed White's complaint by a Memorandum Opinion issued April 6, 1999, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July

12, 1999, White filed a second complaint against Coates in 1

Maryland District Court alleging similar discrimination during her term of employment. Coates again removed the case to this

Court and filed a Motion to Dismiss on res judicata grounds. On her first State complaint, White checked a box indicating that her case was "an action of tort," but the Court found that her complaint was based on alleged discriminatory personnel actions taken by her supervisor, Coates. In particular, White

claimed that she received unfair treatment from Coates, the Assistant Director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Programs Division. White asserted that she was forced to retire because

of unfair treatment and a hostile environment and that Coates retaliated against her for submitting an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint and a retirement request. In

her Summary Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, White alleged that the basis for her complaint was color discrimination (light skinned African-American treated differently compared to other non-light skinned professionals in office), age (over 40 as compared to younger defendant), physical disability (medical condition), and reprisal for retiring. White's second State complaint alleges physical and financial injuries caused by Coates, including (a) "a medical condition"; (b) "lost income for not being allowed to enter into the govt w/o a performance evaluation"; and (c) "held back for two years from retiring in the govt." White did not check a box In a

indicating whether the action was in tort or contract. 2

letter to the Court dated September 21, 1999, White expressed confusion about the disposition of her first complaint. She also

claimed that she was a uniformed member of the armed services at the time of the alleged wrongs and, therefore, Title VII would not apply to her claims.

II. The Court will deny Coates' Motion to Dismiss. According to

the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, "[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." Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Here,

Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398, 101 S. Ct. 2424, 2428 (1981).

White's second complaint involves the same parties and there are overlapping issues; however, it is clear that the Court's April 6, 1999, Memorandum and Order was not a final judgment on the merits. The April 6 Memorandum and Order stated "this Court lacks jurisdiction" over White's claims and, therefore, her complaint would be "dismissed without prejudice." White v. Coates, Civ. A dismissal

No. Y-98-2400, slip op. at 4 (D. Md. Apr. 6, 1999).

based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction generally does not qualify as an adjudication on the merits, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b); see Hughes v. United States, 71 U.S. 232, 237 (1866); 18 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure

Download White v Coates.pdf

Maryland Law