Case 3:06-cv-00952-MEF-CSC Document 12 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`JOE DONALD MANGRUM,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`)
`)
`)
`ALABAMA MEDICAID AGENCY and
`COMMISSIONER OF THE ALABAMA )
`MEDICAID AGENCY,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv952-MEF
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`
`Defendants.
`
`RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Liberally construing his complaint as the court is required to do, the court concludes
`
`that pro se Joe Donald Mangrum (“Mangrum”) brings this action pursuant to Title II of the
`
`Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, alleging that he has been
`
`discriminated against because of his disability. Specifically, Mangrum claims that the
`1
`
`defendants have refused to pay for his prescription medication from December 23, 1993 until
`
`January 17, 2002. Mangrum names the Alabama Medicaid Agency and the Commissioner
`
`of the Alabama Medicaid Agency as defendants in this action. The court has jurisdiction of
`
`the plaintiff’s claims pursuant to its federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the
`
`jurisdictional grant in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.
`
` 42 U.S.C. § 12132 provides as follows:
`
`1 S
`
`ubject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall,
`by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of
`the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by
`any such entity.
`
`

`
`Case 3:06-cv-00952-MEF-CSC Document 12 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 6
`
`This action is presently before the court on the motion to dismiss filed by the
`
`defendants on November 14, 2006. (Doc. # 9). The plaintiff has filed a response to the
`
`motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 11). The plaintiff’s response contains numerous references to
`
`cases and statutes that appear to have little to do with this litigation. After careful review
`2
`
`of the motion and the plaintiff’s response, the court concludes that the defendants’ motion
`
`to dismiss is due to be granted.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The defendants assert that the plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from
`
`bringing this claim because the claim and defendants in this action is identical to those in a
`
`case which was previously dismissed by this court. To the extent that the plaintiff’s claim
`
`in this action alleges a different time period, the defendants assert that the claim could have
`
`been brought in the previous lawsuit. The court agrees that this matter is barred by the
`
`doctrine of res judicata.
`
`In I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson National Bank, 793 F.2d 1541 (11 Cir. 1986), the
`th
`
`Court summarized the doctrine of res judicata as follows:
`
`Res judicata or claim preclusion refers to the preclusive effect of a judgment
`in foreclosing relitigation of matters that were litigated or could have been
`litigated in an earlier suit. ... In order for the doctrine of res judicata to bar a
`subsequent suit, four elements must be present: (1) there must be a final
`judgment on the merits; (2) the decision must be rendered by a court of
`competent jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those in privity with them, must be
`
` For example, the plaintiff refers to Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) and Bounds v. Smith, 430
`2
`U.S. 817 (1977), as well as the Consumer Protection Act of 1974, the Federal Old Age and Survivors
`Insurance, and the Trust Fund Act of 1970.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 3:06-cv-00952-MEF-CSC Document 12 Filed 01/08/07 Page 3 of 6
`
`identical in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action must be involved in
`both cases.
`
`I.A. Durbin, 793 F.2d at 1549 (citations omitted).
`
`(1)
`
`A Final Judgment by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction
`
`In Mangrum v. Alabama Medicaid Agency, et al., Civ. Act. No. 3:01cv1467-ID (M.D.
`
`Ala. 2002), the plaintiff sued the Alabama Medicaid Agency and the Commissioner for
`
`failing to pay for his prescription medications from 1994 through September 2001. On July
`
`12, 2002, the Court ordered that final judgment be entered in accordance with the
`
`Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and dismissed the case with prejudice. See Doc.
`
`34. A review of that Recommendation shows that the dismissal was on the merits. Thus,
`3
`
`it is clear that the court’s dismissal of the case was a final judgment on the merits and that
`
`the decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
`
`(2)
`
`Identical Parties
`
`Parties are “identical” for purposes of res judicata when they are the same or in privity
`
`with one another. NAACP v. Hunt, 891 F.2d 1555, 1561 (11 Cir. 1990). In Mangrum v.
`th
`
`Alabama Medicaid Agency, et al., Civ. Act. No. 3:01cv1467-ID (M.D. Ala. 2002), the
`
`plaintiff named the Alabama Medicaid Agency and Michael Lewis, the then-Commissioner
`
`of the Alabama Medicaid Agency. In the present lawsuit, the plaintiff names the Alabama
`
`Medicaid Agency and the Commissioner of the Alabama Medicaid Agency. Thus, the
`
`3
`
`The court concluded that Mangrum failed to establish the first element of a claim under 42 U.S.C.
`§ 12132, that he is a qualified individual with a disability. The court concluded that Mangrum did not
`demonstrate he met the essential eligibility requirements for participation in an applicable Medicaid program.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 3:06-cv-00952-MEF-CSC Document 12 Filed 01/08/07 Page 4 of 6
`
`defendants in the present lawsuit are the same as, or in privity with, the defendants in the
`
`previous case.
`
`(3)
`
`The Same Cause of Action
`
`In Manning v. City of Auburn, the Court summarized the law regarding when a cause
`
`of action is the same for purposes of res judicata as follows:
`
`In this circuit, the determination of whether the causes of action in two
`proceedings are the same is governed by whether the primary right and duty
`are the same. Hunt, 891 F.2d at 1561 (quoting Kemp v. Birmingham News
`Co., 608 F.2d 1049, 1052 (5 Cir. 1979)); I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat'l
`th
`Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1549 (11 Cir. 1986). The test is one of substance, not
`th
`form. I.A. Durbin, 793 F.2d at 1549. Res judicata applies "not only to the
`precise legal theory presented in the previous litigation, but to all legal theories
`and claims arising out of the same 'operative nucleus of fact.' " Hunt, 891 F.2d
`at 1561 (despite variations in legal theories used and remedies sought, second
`suit barred because wrongful act in both cases was flying Confederate flag
`atop state capitol) (quoting Olmstead v. Amoco Oil Co., 725 F.2d 627, 632
`(11 Cir. 1984)); Jaffree v. Wallace, 837 F.2d 1461, 1468 (11 Cir. 1988)
`th
`th
`(second suit barred because "[b]oth cases raised first amendment (free exercise
`and establishment clause) challenges to use of textbooks and teachings on
`various subjects"); Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, 701 F.2d 556, 560 (5 Cir.
`th
`1983) (section 1983 action against city that refused to hire plaintiff as
`firefighter due to her sex precluded by earlier Title VII action on same facts).
`
`953 F.2d 1355, 1358-59 (11 Cir. 1992).
`th
`
`The plaintiff specifically asserts that the defendants failed to pay for his prescription
`
`medication from “December 23, 1993 on back to this dated (sic) January 17, 2002.” (Compl.
`
`at 1). On January 17, 2002, the plaintiff submitted exhibits and other evidence in support of
`
`his complaint referencing the defendants’ failure to pay for his prescription medication. “Res
`
`judicata acts as a bar ‘not only to the precise legal theory presented in the previous litigation,
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 3:06-cv-00952-MEF-CSC Document 12 Filed 01/08/07 Page 5 of 6
`
`but to all legal theories and claims arising out of the same operative nucleus of fact.’”
`
`Pleming v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 142 F.2d 1354, 1356 (11 Cir. 1998).
`th
`
`More importantly, the issue in the prior litigation is identical to the issue raised in this
`
`lawsuit. The court therefore concludes that the plaintiff’s claims concerning the defendants’
`
`failure to pay for his prescription medication in the present action are barred by the doctrine
`
`of res judicata and should be dismissed. It is further
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on
`
`or before January 21, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in
`
`the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive
`
`or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised
`
`that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.
`
`Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the
`
`Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District
`
`Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual
`
`findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain
`
`error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein
`th
`
`v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of
`th
`
`Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the
`th
`
`decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on
`
`September 30, 1981.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 3:06-cv-00952-MEF-CSC Document 12 Filed 01/08/07 Page 6 of 6
`
`Done this 8 day of January, 2007.
`th
`
` /s/Charles S. Coody
`CHARLES S. COODY
`CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`6