Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Robert T. Mathis, Sr. v. The Hon. Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of the Department of Defense
457 F.2d 926
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1972-05-18
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- holding that a ruling based on a statute of limitations was a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes
- “A ruling based on the statute of limitations is a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes.”
- Secretary of Defense and the United States
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Robert T. Mathis, Sr. v. The Hon. Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of the Department of Defense. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 66 opinions
MATHIS v. LAIRD,457 F.2d 926(5th Cir. 1972)
ROBERT T. MATHIS, SR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. THE HON. MELVIN R. LAIRD,
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
No. 71-2329.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 28, 1972.
Rehearing Denied May 18, 1972.
John L. Briggs, U.S. Atty., Oscar Blasingame, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for respondent-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
[2] The district court, D.C.,324 F. Supp. 885, granted summary judgment for the defendant Secretary of Defense, giving as its grounds the running of the statute of limitations, lack of jurisdiction, andres judicata.Sinceres judicataclearly bars the bringing of this action, it is not necessary to consider the other grounds for denying relief.
[3] Before filing suit in the district court, Mathis had been ruled against by the Court of Claims two times. There, as here, he alleged that his discharge was illegal. The first time, the Court of Claims held that Mathis' action was barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed the suit. Mathis v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 145,391 F.2d 938(1968). On petition for rehearing Mathis alleged that the had completed his original complaint within the limitation period, but prison authorities had failed to mail it properly.1The Court of Claims therefore vacated its order of dismissal and ordered that a hearing be held. Mathis v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 145,394 F.2d 519(1968).
[4] The evidence developed at this hearing showed that plaintiff had not in fact tried to mail his complaint before the running of the statute of limitations. The Court of Claims again dismissed the action on February 20, 1970. Mathis v. United States, 190 Ct.Cl. 925,421 F.2d 703(1970). This suit in the district court was instituted on July 24, 1970.
[5] Plaintiff has already had not one but two days in court. Under any of the various tests which may be used to determine whether two actions are the same forres judicatapurposes, see Acree v. Air Line Pilots Association,390 F.2d 199,201(5th Cir. 1968), the claim asserted by appellant is identical to the one he pursued in the Court of Claims. A ruling based on the statute of limitations is a decision on the merits forres judicatapurposes. Williamson v. Columbia Gas and Electric Corp.,186 F.2d 464(3rd Cir. 1950). The fact that the defendant here is the Secretary of Defense, rather than the United States, is of no consequence. Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins,310 U.S. 381,60 S.Ct. 907,84 L.Ed. 1263(1940);cf.,Carter v. Seamans,411 F.2d 767(5th Cir. 1969).
[6] The district court was correct in holding the action barred by the doctrine ofres judicata.
[7] Affirmed.
- Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5th Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩
- Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Florida State Prison on a conviction for issuing worthless checks. ↩