From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salahuddin v. Jones

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Apr 30, 1993
992 F.2d 447 (2d Cir. 1993)

Summary

holding that pro se plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed where they relied on "wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations"

Summary of this case from Curtis v. Wetzel

Opinion

No. 1179, Docket 92-2728.

Submitted April 12, 1993.

Decided April 30, 1993.

Abdullah Y. Salahuddin, pro se.

Martin A. Hotvet, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albany, N Y (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of N.Y., Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Sol. Gen., Nancy A. Spiegel, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Before VAN GRAAFEILAND and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and POLLACK, District Judge.

The Honorable Milton Pollack, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.


On September 15, 1980, Abdul Y. Salahuddin, then a prisoner in the Comstock Correctional Facility, initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Some of his claims — e.g., foreign substances in his food and lack of recreational opportunities because of snow piled in the yard — were facially frivolous. Other claims alleged that in 1978 he was falsely accused of disciplinary violations and illegally placed in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU"). He also claimed that, while in SHU, he was denied his legal mail and access to the law library and was deprived of congregate religious services. On December 18, 1981, appellees answered the complaint. The answer claimed that Salahuddin had failed to state a valid claim for relief and that appellees were protected by qualified immunity.

The action lay dormant for almost nine years. Why it was not dismissed for failure to prosecute is not clear on the record before us, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (federal courts have inherent power to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute), although it may be difficult to find a case that is more stale and unfit for trial in this circuit. Nevertheless, on October 4, 1991, counsel was appointed for appellant, and the action was thereafter referred by consent to Magistrate Judge Hurd.

Appellees moved for summary judgment. With regard to the claim that appellant was illegally confined, they argued that these were barred by res judicata because they had been adjudicated in Murph a/k/a Salahuddin v. Lynch and Denno, 79-CV-21 (hereafter "Salahuddin I") (dismissing appellant's charge that his 1978 confinement was illegal). Appellees also moved for dismissal, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), of the claims that appellant was denied access to the courts and congregate religious services.

Magistrate Judge Hurd held that appellees had waived the defense of res judicata by failing to raise it in the pleadings. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c); Allen v. Men's World Outlet Inc., 679 F. Supp. 360, 365 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Nevertheless, citing the need to avoid unnecessary relitigation, he dismissed the illegal confinement claims on res judicata grounds. He dismissed the remainder of the complaint for failure to state a claim.

On appeal, Salahuddin concedes that his claims of illegal confinement were adjudicated in Salahuddin I. However, he claims that the district court lacked power to dismiss these claims. We disagree.

The failure of a defendant to raise res judicata in answer does not deprive a court of the power to dismiss a claim on that ground. While that or similar defenses are "ordinarily" not to be recognized when not raised in the answer, Davis v. Bryan, 810 F.2d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 1987) (district court ordinarily should not raise statute of limitations sua sponte), no absolute bar to the consideration of such claims exists. See Carbonell v. Louisiana Dep't of Health Human Resources, 772 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 1985) (court may dismiss sua sponte on res judicata grounds provided it either has before it "all relevant data and legal records" or is in same district in which the original action was filed).

Dismissal of appellant's recycled claims was not only appropriate but virtually mandatory in this case, whether or not the appellees raised res judicata in their answer. First, appellant expressly admits in his brief that years ago Salahuddin I disposed of the precise confinement claim he raises here. Second, res judicata is a doctrine founded in part on the strong public interest in economizing the use of judicial resources by avoiding relitigation. Third, relitigation here would compel the use of the state's public funds to defend a claim that was adjudicated years ago and cannot practically be readjudicated now. The court was thus clearly correct to dismiss claims already disposed of in Salahuddin I.

Appellant's new claims were also correctly dismissed. With regard to appellant's claim that he was denied access to the courts, he failed to allege that any named defendant prevented him from gaining access to the library and made wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations regarding the delay and opening of his legal mail. Greater accuracy and specificity are required of even pro se plaintiffs faced with a motion for summary judgment. Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 781 F.2d 24, 29 (2d Cir. 1986).

Appellant's claim that he was improperly denied congregate religious services was properly dismissed. Young v. Coughlin, 866 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1989), is not to the contrary. Young held that courts should not simply assume that prison officials were justified in limiting a prisoner's free exercise rights when the prisoner was in disciplinary confinement for refusing to accept certain job assignments. Id. at 570. We suggested a case-by-case analysis because "'not all segregated prisoners are potential troublemakers.'" Id. (quoting LaReau v. MacDougall, 473 F.2d 974, 979 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1972). In this case, appellant was in SHU for fighting with another inmate. Given that appellant posed a threat to the safety of other prisoners and that the state forbade only congregate religious services and not his solitary practice of religion, the state's purpose was legitimate.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Salahuddin v. Jones

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Apr 30, 1993
992 F.2d 447 (2d Cir. 1993)

holding that pro se plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed where they relied on "wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations"

Summary of this case from Curtis v. Wetzel

holding that failure of a defendant to raise res judicata in an answer does not deprive a court of power to dismiss claim on that ground

Summary of this case from Mackinnon v. City of N.Y.

holding that "[t]he failure of a defendant to raise res judicata in answer does not deprive a court of the power to dismiss a claim on that ground"

Summary of this case from Reeder v. Uhler

holding that defendants had a legitimate penological purpose for preventing an inmate from attending congregate religious services where the inmate was in disciplinary confinement for fighting with another inmate

Summary of this case from Diggs v. Volpe

holding that court may, sua sponte, give preclusive effect to decision from court in the same district against identical party on same issue

Summary of this case from Valley Cnty. v. United States Dep't of Agriculture

holding that "the strong public interest in economizing the use of judicial resources by avoiding relitigation" justifies a court's sua sponte raising of res judicata, and that "[t]he failure of a defendant to raise res judicata in answer does not deprive a court of the power to dismiss a claim on that ground"

Summary of this case from Day v. Distinctive Personnel, Inc.

holding that "the strong public interest in economizing the use of judicial resources by avoiding relitigation" justifies a court's sua sponte raising of res judicata, and that "[t]he failure of a defendant to raise res judicata in answer does not deprive a court of the power to dismiss a claim on that ground"

Summary of this case from RENE v. JABLONSKI

holding district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims proper where plaintiff only made "wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations"

Summary of this case from Henneberry v. Sumitomo Corp. of America

holding district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims proper where plaintiff only made "wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations"

Summary of this case from Henneberry v. Sumitomo Corp. of America

holding that "the strong public interest in economizing the use of judicial resources by avoiding relitigation" justifies a court's sua sponte raising of res judicata, and that "[t]he failure of a defendant to raise res judicata in answer does not deprive a court of the power to dismiss a claim on that ground"

Summary of this case from Doural v. Bank of New York

finding failure of a defendant to raise res judicata in an answer did not deprive the district court of power to dismiss the claim on that ground

Summary of this case from Williams v. Fay Servicing LLC

finding sua sponte consideration of res judicata "virtually mandatory" based on, inter alia, Plaintiff's previous acknowledgment that a prior action addressed the same issues as his instant complaint, and the fact judicial economy would be served by avoiding relitigation

Summary of this case from Cho v. Seventh Ave. Fine Foods Corp.

affirming sua sponte dismissal on res judicata grounds

Summary of this case from Griffin v. Carnes

affirming dismissal of "recycled" claims based on res judicata

Summary of this case from Grundstein v. Vt. Bd. of Bar Examiners

affirming dismissal of a claim based on "wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations"

Summary of this case from Alexander v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y.

affirming the dismissal of a claim based on "wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations"

Summary of this case from Perry v. Nysarc, Inc.

affirming dismissal of claims under Rule 12(b) on grounds of res judicata

Summary of this case from McCluskey v. Nunziata

affirming a Rule 12(b) dismissal on res judicata grounds

Summary of this case from Penades v. Republic of Ecu

affirming dismissal of a claim based on "wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations"

Summary of this case from Kinchen v. St. John's Univ.

affirming dismissal of claims under Rule 12(b) on grounds of res judicata

Summary of this case from Byrd v. Grove St. Mgmt. Corp.

affirming the dismissal of a claim based on "wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations"

Summary of this case from Pierce v. Fordham Univ., Inc.

affirming a 12(b) dismissal on res judicata grounds

Summary of this case from Graham v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

affirming the dismissal of a claim based on "wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations"

Summary of this case from Ghadersohi v. Roswell Park Cancer Institute

affirming dismissal of claims under Rule 12(b) on grounds of res judicata

Summary of this case from KUAR v. MAWN

affirming dismissal of claims under Rule 12(b) on grounds of res judicata

Summary of this case from Hoy v. Incorporated Village
Case details for

Salahuddin v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:ABDUL Y. SALAHUDDIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. E.W. JONES, SUPERINTENDENT OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Apr 30, 1993

Citations

992 F.2d 447 (2d Cir. 1993)

Citing Cases

Weir v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.

In this context, these considerations animate the doctrines of res judicata, or claim preclusion, and…

WELL-MADE TOY MFG. CORP. v. LOTUS ONDA INDUSTRIAL CO.

It is well-settled that the failure of a defendant to raise the issue of res judicata "does not deprive a…