ESPARRAGUERA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY et al
| MARIA ESPARRAGUERA |
| DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MARK ESPER, RYAN MCCARTHY and U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD |
| 1:2022cv01109 |
| April 21, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Timothy J Kelly |
| Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 702 Administrative Procedure Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's #4 Response to Order to Show Cause by June 21, 2022. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 5/25/2022. (lctjk3)
|
|
Filing 4
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re Order to Show Cause,,, filed by MARIA ESPARRAGUERA. (Keeven, Christopher)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER: The complaint in this case appears to contain the same causes of action as Plaintiff's complaint in 21-cv-421, Esparraguera v. Dep't of the Army, which the Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 27. The complaint here contains several additional factual allegations, but they are not relevant to the Court's dismissal on those grounds. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that by May 23, 2022, Plaintiff shall show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for preclusive reasons (res judicata and collateral estoppel), as well as for the reasons that the Court dismissed Plaintiff's earlier case (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/26/2022. (lctjk3)
|
|
ENTERED IN ERROR..... MINUTE ORDER: The complaint in this case appears to contain the same causes of action as Plaintiff's complaint in 21-cv-421, Esparraguera v. Dep't of the Army, which the Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 27. The complaint here contains several additional factual allegations, but they are not relevant to the Court's dismissal on those grounds. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that by May 23, 2022, Plaintiff shall show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for reasons including but not limited to res judicata and collateral estoppel, as well as for the reasons -- lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim -- that the Court dismissed Plaintiffs earlier case. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/26/2022. (lctjk3) Modified to correct spelling error on 4/26/2022 (zkh). Modified to mark as error on 4/26/2022 (zkh).
|
|
Filing 3
SUMMONS (6) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: #1 Notice and Consent)(zmh)
|
|
Case Assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly. (zsb)
|
|
Filing 2
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by MARIA ESPARRAGUERA. Case related to Case No. 21-cv-00421-TJK. (zsb)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ADCDC-9187950) filed by MARIA ESPARRAGUERA. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Related Case Form, #3 Summons Department of the Army, #4 Summons Secretary of the Army, #5 Summons Under Secretary of the Army, #6 Summons Civil Process Clerk, #7 Summons Merit Systems Protection Board, #8 Summons Attorney General)(Keeven, Christopher)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
