`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`Southern Division
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: GJH-20-1960
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES ELLIS HALL, II,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`Plaintiff James Ellis Hall II, proceeding pro se, brought this civil action against
`
`Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc. (“Verizon”), alleging that Defendant unlawfully, and
`
`without an investigation, terminated Plaintiff’s employment based on Plaintiff’s publication of
`
`two articles on social media. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 28-2. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 20, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
`
`Pleading, ECF No. 28. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the
`
`following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is denied, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
`
`granted.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND1
`
`Defendant Verizon employed Plaintiff James Ellis Hall II from 2002 until 2018. ECF No.
`
`1 at 4; 2 see also ECF No. 28-2 ¶¶ 11, 14. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant,
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise stated, the background facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1 and Plaintiff’s
`proposed Amended Complaint, ECF No. 28-2, and are presumed to be true.
`
`2 Pin cites to documents filed on the Court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) refer to the page numbers generated
`by that system.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01960-GJH Document 31 Filed 07/28/21 Page 2 of 9
`
`Plaintiff worked in billing, customer service, pricing, and solutions architecture. ECF No. 1 at 4.
`
`Throughout his employment, Plaintiff supported the Department of Homeland Security, the
`
`Department of Defense, and “the federal healthcare vertical market.” Id. Plaintiff’s last position
`
`at Verizon was as a senior solutions architect supporting the Department of Homeland Security,
`
`including working on the EINSTEIN 3A, a “sole-source” contract involving a cybersecurity
`
`application. Id.; ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 14. Plaintiff had an exemplary professional record at Verizon.
`
`ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 15.
`
`“Plaintiff is [also] a published author, with credits related to translation of the Bhagavad
`
`Gītā, the Hindu Bible—as well as with comparative work in Chinese scripture, Old English
`
`literature, as well as Old Icelandic.” ECF No. 1 at 5. In 2018, in his role as an author, Plaintiff
`
`wrote and published two articles on a Facebook page. ECF No. 1 at 4–5; ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 18. The
`
`Facebook page to which Plaintiff published these articles is not a personal page or account, but
`
`instead is a page listed as “being for the purpose of promoting traditional Hindu theology and
`
`spirituality.” ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 18. Both articles were also shared to Plaintiff’s personal Facebook
`
`feed. Id.
`
`Plaintiff’s first article, published on May 15, 2018, included content reporting on a retired
`
`federal executive’s alleged sexual abuse of a child. Id. ¶¶ 13, 19; ECF No. 1 at 5, 7. Plaintiff’s
`
`second article, published on June 14, 2018, promoted the first article and included content
`
`reporting on alleged misconduct in the administration of a federal contract—e.g., wasted
`
`spending and program mismanagement. ECF No. 1 at 5, 7; ECF No. 28-2 ¶¶ 13, 20. Both articles
`
`reference Hindu beliefs and spiritual practices, Sanskrit literature, and Plaintiff’s translations of
`
`that literature. ECF No. 1 at 5, 7; ECF No. 28-2 ¶¶ 13, 19–20. Defendant Verizon “was aware of
`
`the content of the subject articles, including the religious content, the Plaintiff’s reports on
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01960-GJH Document 31 Filed 07/28/21 Page 3 of 9
`
`criminal activity, as well as the disclosures concerning gross mismanagement, and gross waste of
`
`funds.” ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 22.
`
`On June 18, 2018, following Plaintiff’s publication of the two articles on social media,
`
`Defendant held a call with Plaintiff concerning Plaintiff’s social media activity and informed him
`
`that he would be suspended pending an internal investigation. ECF No. 1 at 6; ECF No. 28-2
`
`¶ 12. Plaintiff indicated that he would cooperate with the investigation but asserted “that
`
`communication must be documented in writing[.]” ECF No. 1 at 6. Nonetheless, on June 19,
`
`Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment due to Plaintiff’s publication of the two articles.
`
`Id.; ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 12. Plaintiff’s termination was not due to his performance. ECF No. 28-2
`
`¶ 16. Additionally, Defendant “did not perform an investigation to determine whether the articles
`
`included protected speech, whether there was, or would have been, any actual adverse impact,
`
`and/or whether there was any actual violation of policy.” ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 21. In fact, Plaintiff’s
`
`social media articles “did not adversely impact the Defendant’s workplace environment,
`
`operations, customer[s], or business, nor did the same impact the Plaintiff’s effectiveness to
`
`perform his assigned duties or roles, either in employment by the Defendant, or in his support of
`
`the federal government.” Id. ¶¶ 24, 31, 43, 51. Plaintiff further alleges that he was injured by
`
`Defendant’s unlawful termination of Plaintiff’s employment. Id. ¶¶ 26, 33, 46, 58.
`
`Plaintiff originally challenged Defendant’s wrongful termination of his employment in
`
`the Eastern District of Virginia, bringing a First Amendment claim. ECF No. 1 at 14; ECF No.
`
`23-1.3 The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Eastern District
`
`of Virginia”) dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon
`
`which relief could be granted. ECF No. 1 at 14; ECF No. 23-1. Specifically, the Eastern District
`
`
`3 The Court “may take judicial notice of matters of public record, including court and administrative filings.” Dyer v.
`Md. State Bd. of Educ., 187 F. Supp. 3d 599, 608 (D. Md. 2016).
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01960-GJH Document 31 Filed 07/28/21 Page 4 of 9
`
`of Virginia held that:
`
`Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law because “the constitutional guarantee of
`free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or
`state.” Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976). “The Constitution does not
`protect or provide redress against a private corporation which abridges the free
`expression of others.” McIntyre-Handy v. APAC Customer Servs., Inc., 422 F.
`Supp. 2d 611, 626 (E.D. Va. 2006) (citing Hudgens, 424 U.S. at 513). Because
`Verizon is not a government actor, and Plaintiff’s claim deals solely with private
`parties, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`ECF No. 23-1 at 2–3. Plaintiff then appealed the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal to the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which found that the order being appealed
`
`was not final because Plaintiff “could cure the defects in his complaint through amendment,” and
`
`therefore “dismiss[ed] the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand[ed] the case to the district
`
`court with instructions to allow [Plaintiff] to file an amended complaint.” ECF No. 23-2 at 3;
`
`ECF No. 1 at 14. On remand, the Eastern District of Virginia issued an Order instructing Plaintiff
`
`to amend his Complaint within 30 days and informing him that, if he failed to do so, “the case
`
`will be dismissed with prejudice.” ECF No. 23-3 at 2; ECF No. 1 at 14. Plaintiff failed to amend
`
`his complaint, ECF No. 1 at 14, and, thus, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Plaintiff’s
`
`action with prejudice on April 20, 2019, see ECF No. 23-3 at 2; Order at 1, Hall v. Verizon
`
`Commc’ns, Inc., No. 1:18cv1080 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2019), ECF No. 37.
`
`
`
`Over a year later, on July 2, 2020, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated the instant action.
`
`ECF No. 1. Defendant responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss on January 7, 2021. ECF No. 20.
`
`Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s Motion on January 28, 2021, ECF No. 23, and Defendant replied
`
`on February 12, 2021. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Amend Pleading on June 17,
`
`2021. ECF 28. Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s Motion on July 6, 2021, ECF No. 29, and Plaintiff
`
`replied on July 15, 2021, ECF No. 30.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01960-GJH Document 31 Filed 07/28/21 Page 5 of 9
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that courts “should freely give leave”
`
`to parties to amend pleadings “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “This liberal
`
`rule gives effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits instead of
`
`disposing of them on technicalities.” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006). The
`
`Fourth Circuit has “interpreted Rule 15(a) to provide that ‘leave to amend a pleading should be
`
`denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad
`
`faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been futile.’” Id. (quoting
`
`Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)); see also Mayfield v. Nat’l
`
`Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 379 (4th Cir. 2012). “Futility is apparent if
`
`the proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim under the applicable rules and
`
`accompanying standards,” and would therefore not survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
`
`12(b)(6). Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, 690 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Katyle v. Penn Nat’l
`
`Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 2011)).
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain
`
`sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
`
`570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
`
`the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
`
`alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
`
`of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
`
`U.S. at 555).
`
`The purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) “is to test the sufficiency of a complaint and not
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01960-GJH Document 31 Filed 07/28/21 Page 6 of 9
`
`to resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of the claim, or the applicability of
`
`defenses.” Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
`
`quotation marks and citation omitted). “The court may, however, rule on an affirmative defense
`
`such as res judicata [at the motion to dismiss stage] where ‘it clearly appears on the face of the
`
`complaint.’” Kalos v. Centennial Sur. Assocs., No. CCB-12-1532, 2012 WL 6210117, at *2 (D.
`
`Md. Dec. 12, 2012) (quoting Andrews v. Daw, 201 F.3d 521, 524 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000)). When
`
`deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court “must accept as true all of the factual
`
`allegations contained in the complaint,” and must “draw all reasonable inferences [from those
`
`facts] in favor of the plaintiff.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d
`
`435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court need not,
`
`however, accept unsupported legal allegations, see Revene v. Charles Cnty. Comm’rs, 882 F.2d
`
`870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989), legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Papasan v. Allain, 478
`
`U.S. 265, 286 (1986), or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any references to actual events,
`
`United Black Firefighters of Norfolk v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979). The Court must
`
`abide by its “affirmative obligation . . . to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses
`
`from proceeding to trial.” Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 526 (4th
`
`Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
`
`When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court “may consider documents attached to the
`
`complaint, as well as documents attached to the motion to dismiss, if they are integral to the
`
`complaint and their authenticity is not disputed.” Sposato v. First Mariner Bank, No. CCB-12-
`
`1569, 2013 WL 1308582, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 28, 2013). The Court “may take judicial notice of
`
`matters of public record, including court and administrative filings.” Dyer v. Md. State Bd. of
`
`Educ., 187 F. Supp. 3d 599, 608 (D. Md. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01960-GJH Document 31 Filed 07/28/21 Page 7 of 9
`
`Specifically, in considering the res judicata and collateral estoppel defenses at the motion to
`
`dismiss stage, a court may consider the “documents from the underlying case.” Andrews, 201
`
`F.3d at 524 n.1.
`
`Finally, pro se complaints must be construed liberally and must be “held to less stringent
`
`standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
`
`“Dismissal of a pro se complaint . . . for failure to state a valid claim is therefore only appropriate
`
`when, after applying this liberal construction, it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
`
`prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Spencer v.
`
`Earley, 278 F. App’x 254, 259–60 (4th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original) (quoting Haines v.
`
`Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972)). However, despite this liberal construction requirement,
`
`“[p]rinciples requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not . . . without limits.”
`
`Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Courts are not required to
`
`“conjure up questions never squarely presented to them” nor “construct full blown claims from
`
`sentence fragments[.]” Id.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`In both its Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, and its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
`
`Amend, ECF No. 29, Defendant argues that the doctrine of res judicata bars Plaintiff’s claims.
`
`ECF No. 20 at 3–4; ECF No. 29 at 4.
`
`“Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars a party from relitigating a claim that
`
`was decided or could have been decided in an original suit.” Mbongo v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,
`
`N.A., No. PWG-14-1620, 2014 WL 3845443, at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2014), aff’d, 589 F. App’x
`
`188 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Laurel Sand & Gravel Co. v. Wilson, 519 F.3d 156, 161 (4th Cir.
`
`2008)). “For res judicata to prevent a party from raising a claim, three elements must be present:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01960-GJH Document 31 Filed 07/28/21 Page 8 of 9
`
`‘(1) a judgment on the merits in a prior suit resolving (2) claims by the same parties or their
`
`privies, and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.’” Ohio Valley Env’t. Coal.
`
`v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 210 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Aliff v. Joy Mfg. Co., 914 F.2d
`
`39, 42 (4th Cir. 1990)). “Even claims that were not raised in the original suit may be precluded if
`
`they arose from the same transaction or occurrence as those raised in the first suit and were
`
`available to the plaintiff at the time of the first suit.” Id. at 210–11.
`
`Here, all three elements of res judicata are met. First, the Eastern District of Virginia’s
`
`April 29, 2019 Order dismissing Plaintiff’s suit on the basis of failure to state a claim did so with
`
`prejudice, Order at 1, Hall, No. 1:18cv1080, ECF No. 37 (“[T]his matter is hereby DISMISSED
`
`WITH PREJUDICE.”), and thus was a final judgment on the merits. See Huang v. Salameh, No.
`
`PJM-06-2444, 2010 WL 3245375, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 16, 2010) (“A dismissal with prejudice
`
`satisfies the requirement of having a previous judgment on the merits.”); see also Federated
`
`Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981) (“The dismissal for failure to state a
`
`claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a ‘judgment on the merits.’” (citing
`
`Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 190 (1947))); Luther v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 4:16-cv-
`
`00013, 2016 WL 3948109, at *3 n.4 (W.D. Va. July 18, 2016) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal with
`
`prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata.”). Second, the
`
`Eastern District of Virginia case and the instant case involve the same parties or their privies, as
`
`the same plaintiff brought suit against the same defendant in each case. Compare ECF No. 1 and
`
`ECF No. 28-2, with Order at 1, Hall, No. 1:18cv1080, ECF No. 37. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff
`
`purports to raise any new claims in this case—such as claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights
`
`Act of 1964, the Whistleblower Act of 1989, or state tort law, ECF No. 1 at 6; ECF No. 1 at 7;
`
`ECF No. 1 at 8; ECF No. 28-2 at 7–8; ECF No. 28-2 at 9–14—those claims arise from the same
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01960-GJH Document 31 Filed 07/28/21 Page 9 of 9
`
`transaction or occurrence as the claims Plaintiff raised in his first suit, the 2018 termination of
`
`Plaintiff’s employment, and could have been raised in that suit. Thus, the Complaint and
`
`proposed Amended Complaint at issue here are based on the same cause of action as the suit
`
`Plaintiff filed in the Eastern District of Virginia. See Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal., 556 F.3d at 210–
`
`11. Because all three elements are met, the doctrine of res judicata precludes the relitigation of
`
`all of Plaintiff’s claims in this case.
`
`Finding the claims Plaintiff includes in his proposed Amended Complaint barred, the
`
`Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as futile. Laber, 438 F.3d at 426 (stating that a court
`
`may deny leave to amend a pleading when the amendment would have been futile). Moreover,
`
`because Plaintiff’s claims as alleged in his original Complaint are also barred by res judicata,
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, ECF No. 28, is denied, and
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, is granted. A separate Order shall issue.
`
`
`Date: July 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` __/s/________________________
`GEORGE J. HAZEL
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`9
`
`