Page 1 IN THE
Ul'TITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR TfIE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CIVIL CASE NO. 01-
JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, PRO SE
Appellant,
v.
CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., ET AL.,
Appellee.
APPELLEES' INFORMAL BRIEF
Robert J. Lloyd, III, Esq,
McGUIREWOODS LLP
1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite McLean, Virginia (703) 712-Counsel for AppelleesPage 2
lliTRODUCTION
Appellant Joseph R. JohIlson's condLlct in this case serves as a vivid illustration of
vexatious litigation by a federal prisoner. Nearly two years after the US. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia dismissed his three consolidated cases with prejudice, Appellant now
seeks yet again to overturn this dismissal. In this, his third appeal to this Court, Appellant raises
no colorable reason to overturn the two most recent District Court Orders entered against him.
n.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant has raised the following issues on appeal in his Informal Brief:
1.
Whether the "District Court['s] refusal to file appellant's timely Notice of
Dismissal constitutes reversible error"?
2.
Whether the "District Court['s] denial of appellant's motion to set-aside judgment
and to dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction constitutes abuse of
discretion" ?
m.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant Joseph R. Johnson ("Johnson"), who is currently is incarcerated at the Federal
Prison Camp in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, is proceeding pro se herein. This case began in with a series of four lawsuits filed by Johnson against Appellees Circuit City Stores, Inc.
("Circuit City") and First North American National Bank ("FNANB ") (collectively, "Appellees")
in four different courts in Maryland and Virginia.
All four lawsuits alleged essentially identical causes of action stemming from Johnson's
purchase and return ofa $2,939.97 personal computer at a Circuit City store in 1996. Because
Johnson had removed vital components from the interior of the computer prior to returning it,
Circuit City refused to credit his credit card account with FNANB. Johnson responded by filingPage 3 suits against Circuit City and Fl'-JAJ'ffi in the US District Comi for the Eastern District of
Virginia, the US District Comt for the District ofMaryland and the CirCl1it Comt for Prince
George's County, Maryland. All of Johnson's lawsuits alleged the same facts and causes of
action, seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for fraud, breach of contract,
negligence and emotional distress.
I
Three of the cases filed by Johnson against the Appellees were eventually consolidated in
the u.s. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Case Nos. CA-98-1407-A; CA-99695-A; and CA-99-696-A). These cases were subsequently dismissed with prejudice pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) due to Johnson's failure to comply with his discovery obligations
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court's Order dismissing the
consolidated cases was entered on July 15, 1999. This Court affirmed the District Court's ruling
by means of an unpublished per curiam opinion decided on November 23, 1999. See Johnson v.
Circuit City Stores, Inc., et a!., Nos. 99-2020,99-2021, and 99-2022.
More than one year after the District Court dismissed his cases with prejudice, Johnson
filed a Rule 60 "Motion for Relief from Operation of Judgment" in Case No. CA-98-1407-A and
a "Motion to Vacate Judgment and Remand for of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" in Case
Nos. CA-99-695-A and CA-99-696-A. By Order entered on August 1,2000, the District Court
denied Johnson's Motion for Relief from Operation of Judgment as untimely under Fed. R. Civ.
P.60(b). By Order entered on August 3,2000, the District Court also denied Johnson's Motion
to Vacate Judgment and Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ruling that the court
In addition to the four lawsuits mentioned herein, Appellant has filed two additional
lawsuits against Appellees in the Circuit Court of Prince George's County, Maryland (Case No.
CALOO-00280) and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore (Civil
Action No. DKC-00-3670), respectively. The Maryland state court action was resolved recently
by entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellees, together with an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. The Maryland federal court action remains pending.
2Page 4 possessed subj ect matter jmisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship under 28 USC §
1332. This Court affirmed the District Cotllt's opinion in all respects on January 23,2001. Se(C
Johnson v. Circuit City Stores, Inc, et aI, Nos. 00-2144, 00-2145 and 00··2146 (per curiam).
On January 26, 2001, the District Court received a "Notice of Dismissal" from Appellant
seeking to dismiss the consolidated case pmsuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 41(a). On February 2,2001,
the District Court received a new "Motion to Set Aside Judgment and to Dismiss Without
Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiction" from Appellant. In Orders entered February 1 and February
7, 2001, the District Court ruled that because the consolidated cases had been previously
dismissed with prejudice, Appellant had "no proper legalbasis upon which to file the tendered
Notice of Dismissal or any other pleadings in these actions." Order entered February 1, 2001 at
2-3. Because the case was closed, the District Court also directed the Clerk of Court to include
Johnson's pleadings as "received" rather than "filed'!
Appellant noticed his appeal to these Orders on or about February IS, 2001, but failed to
serve a copy of his Informal Briefupon counsel for Appellees.
IVo
ARGUMENT
Taking his two "issues on appeal" together, Appellant essentially contends that he
submitted a "notice of dismissal" to the District Court on November 12, 1998, thereby divesting
the Court of jurisdiction over his action. 2 Of course, as noted by the District Court in its Order
of February 1, 2001, Appellant previously sought to dismiss his action without prejudice, but this
request was" denied because defendant [i. e., Appellees] had already responded to the complaint."
February 1, 2001 Order at 2; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1) (in absence of stipulation, Plaintiff
may only dismiss case prior to fIling of answer or motion for summary judgment by defendant).
A District Court's order dismissing a complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See
th
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4 Cir. 1989).
3Page 5 Accordingly, the doctrine of the law of the case bars the relief sought by Appellant in the instant
appeal. AJternatively, Appellant's appeal is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppeL
The doctrine of the law of the case "posits that when a court decides upon a rule oflaw,
that decision should continue to govern the same issue in subsequent stages in the same case."
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815-]6 (]988). As a "practical
matter, once the decision of an appellate court establishes 'the law of the case,' it must be
followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on later appeal ...
unless: (1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority
has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue, or (3) the prior decision was
clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice." United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3 d 655,
661 (4th Cir. 1999) quoting Sejman v. Warner-Lambert Co., 845 F.2d 66,69 (4th Cir. 1988).
Patently, none of the "exceptional circumstances" justifying departure from the law of the
case doctrine are present herein. This Court should stand by its prior affirmance of the District
Court's denial of the Appellant's attempt to dismiss his action without prejudice.
In the alternative, the relief sought by Appellant is barred by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel. As noted by the District Court, Appellant lacked any "proper legal basis" to file his
most recent motion and notice of dismissal below. The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents
the re-litigation of an issue of fact or law that was settled in a previous case. See Allen v.
McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). While it is related to the doctrine of res judicata, it is "applied
to narrower portions of an action than is the case for res judicata." United States v. Tatum, F.2d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 1991). Collateral estoppel applies if:
(1) the issue sought to be precluded is identical to one previously litigated; (2) the issue
[was] actually determined in the prior proceeding; (3) determination of the issue was a
critical and necessary part of the decision in the prior proceeding; (4) the prior judgment
4Page 6 [is] final and valid; and (5) the party against whom the estoppel is asserted.
and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previoLls fomm
. had a full
Sedlack v. BrasweLl Servs. GroUj;L]j]C., 134 F.3d 219,224 (4(h Cir. 1998)'
More than twenty-one (21) months have passed since the District Court dismissed
Appellant's consolidated cases with prejudice, and this decision was affirmed by this Court. The
question of whether Appellant was entitled to dismiss his case without prejudice was previously
litigated, and the District Court's decision is final and valid. Accordingly, Appellant is barred
from re-litigating this issue.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should AFFIRM the Orders of the District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia entered on February 1 and 7, 2001, and award Appellees any
relief deemed just.
Respectfully submitted,
CJRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. and
FJRST NORTH AMERICAN BANK
By Counsel
Robert J. 0 ,III, E .
McGUJREWOODS LL
1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite McLean, Virginia (703) 712-(703) 712-5294 Facsimile
Counsel for Appellees
5Page 7 The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing Appellee's Informal
Briefwas mailed, via first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the following Qro se Appellant:
Joseph R. Johnson, Inmate
40996-083-Unit Federal Prison Camp
P.O. Box Lewisburg, PA
1>'
This
7 q day of April, 2001.
CornmLit Doc # 58658vl
6
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
IN THE
Ul'TITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR TfIE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CIVIL CASE NO. 01-1244
JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, PRO SE
Appellant,
v.
CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., ET AL.,
Appellee.
APPELLEES' INFORMAL BRIEF
Robert J. Lloyd, III, Esq,
McGUIREWOODS LLP
1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1800
McLean, Virginia 22102
(703) 712-5079
Counsel for Appellees
PDF Page 3
1
lliTRODUCTION
Appellant Joseph R. JohIlson's condLlct in this case serves as a vivid illustration of
vexatious litigation by a federal prisoner. Nearly two years after the US. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia dismissed his three consolidated cases with prejudice, Appellant now
seeks yet again to overturn this dismissal. In this, his third appeal to this Court, Appellant raises
no colorable reason to overturn the two most recent District Court Orders entered against him.
n.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant has raised the following issues on appeal in his Informal Brief:
1.
Whether the "District Court['s] refusal to file appellant's timely Notice of
Dismissal constitutes reversible error"?
2.
Whether the "District Court['s] denial of appellant's motion to set-aside judgment
and to dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction constitutes abuse of
discretion" ?
m.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant Joseph R. Johnson ("Johnson"), who is currently is incarcerated at the Federal
Prison Camp in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, is proceeding pro se herein. This case began in 1998
with a series of four lawsuits filed by Johnson against Appellees Circuit City Stores, Inc.
("Circuit City") and First North American National Bank ("FNANB ") (collectively, "Appellees")
in four different courts in Maryland and Virginia.
All four lawsuits alleged essentially identical causes of action stemming from Johnson's
purchase and return ofa $2,939.97 personal computer at a Circuit City store in 1996. Because
Johnson had removed vital components from the interior of the computer prior to returning it,
Circuit City refused to credit his credit card account with FNANB. Johnson responded by filing
PDF Page 4
suits against Circuit City and Fl'-JAJ'ffi in the US District Comi for the Eastern District of
Virginia, the US District Comt for the District ofMaryland and the CirCl1it Comt for Prince
George's County, Maryland. All of Johnson's lawsuits alleged the same facts and causes of
action, seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for fraud, breach of contract,
negligence and emotional distress.
I
Three of the cases filed by Johnson against the Appellees were eventually consolidated in
the u.s. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Case Nos. CA-98-1407-A; CA-99695-A; and CA-99-696-A). These cases were subsequently dismissed with prejudice pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) due to Johnson's failure to comply with his discovery obligations
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court's Order dismissing the
consolidated cases was entered on July 15, 1999. This Court affirmed the District Court's ruling
by means of an unpublished per curiam opinion decided on November 23, 1999. See Johnson v.
Circuit City Stores, Inc., et a!., Nos. 99-2020,99-2021, and 99-2022.
More than one year after the District Court dismissed his cases with prejudice, Johnson
filed a Rule 60 "Motion for Relief from Operation of Judgment" in Case No. CA-98-1407-A and
a "Motion to Vacate Judgment and Remand for of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" in Case
Nos. CA-99-695-A and CA-99-696-A. By Order entered on August 1,2000, the District Court
denied Johnson's Motion for Relief from Operation of Judgment as untimely under Fed. R. Civ.
P.60(b). By Order entered on August 3,2000, the District Court also denied Johnson's Motion
to Vacate Judgment and Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ruling that the court
In addition to the four lawsuits mentioned herein, Appellant has filed two additional
lawsuits against Appellees in the Circuit Court of Prince George's County, Maryland (Case No.
CALOO-00280) and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore (Civil
Action No. DKC-00-3670), respectively. The Maryland state court action was resolved recently
by entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellees, together with an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. The Maryland federal court action remains pending.
2
PDF Page 5
possessed subj ect matter jmisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship under 28 USC §
1332. This Court affirmed the District Cotllt's opinion in all respects on January 23,2001. Se(C
Johnson v. Circuit City Stores, Inc, et aI, Nos. 00-2144, 00-2145 and 00··2146 (per curiam).
On January 26, 2001, the District Court received a "Notice of Dismissal" from Appellant
seeking to dismiss the consolidated case pmsuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 41(a). On February 2,2001,
the District Court received a new "Motion to Set Aside Judgment and to Dismiss Without
Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiction" from Appellant. In Orders entered February 1 and February
7, 2001, the District Court ruled that because the consolidated cases had been previously
dismissed with prejudice, Appellant had "no proper legalbasis upon which to file the tendered
Notice of Dismissal or any other pleadings in these actions." Order entered February 1, 2001 at
2-3. Because the case was closed, the District Court also directed the Clerk of Court to include
Johnson's pleadings as "received" rather than "filed'!
Appellant noticed his appeal to these Orders on or about February IS, 2001, but failed to
serve a copy of his Informal Briefupon counsel for Appellees.
IVo
ARGUMENT
Taking his two "issues on appeal" together, Appellant essentially contends that he
submitted a "notice of dismissal" to the District Court on November 12, 1998, thereby divesting
the Court of jurisdiction over his action. 2 Of course, as noted by the District Court in its Order
of February 1, 2001, Appellant previously sought to dismiss his action without prejudice, but this
request was" denied because defendant [i. e., Appellees] had already responded to the complaint."
February 1, 2001 Order at 2; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1) (in absence of stipulation, Plaintiff
may only dismiss case prior to fIling of answer or motion for summary judgment by defendant).
A District Court's order dismissing a complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See
th
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4 Cir. 1989).
2
3
PDF Page 6
Accordingly, the doctrine of the law of the case bars the relief sought by Appellant in the instant
appeal. AJternatively, Appellant's appeal is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppeL
The doctrine of the law of the case "posits that when a court decides upon a rule oflaw,
that decision should continue to govern the same issue in subsequent stages in the same case."
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815-]6 (]988). As a "practical
matter, once the decision of an appellate court establishes 'the law of the case,' it must be
followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on later appeal ...
unless: (1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority
has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue, or (3) the prior decision was
clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice." United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3 d 655,
661 (4th Cir. 1999) quoting Sejman v. Warner-Lambert Co., 845 F.2d 66,69 (4th Cir. 1988).
Patently, none of the "exceptional circumstances" justifying departure from the law of the
case doctrine are present herein. This Court should stand by its prior affirmance of the District
Court's denial of the Appellant's attempt to dismiss his action without prejudice.
In the alternative, the relief sought by Appellant is barred by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel. As noted by the District Court, Appellant lacked any "proper legal basis" to file his
most recent motion and notice of dismissal below. The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents
the re-litigation of an issue of fact or law that was settled in a previous case. See Allen v.
McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). While it is related to the doctrine of res judicata, it is "applied
to narrower portions of an action than is the case for res judicata." United States v. Tatum, 943
F.2d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 1991). Collateral estoppel applies if:
(1) the issue sought to be precluded is identical to one previously litigated; (2) the issue
[was] actually determined in the prior proceeding; (3) determination of the issue was a
critical and necessary part of the decision in the prior proceeding; (4) the prior judgment
4
PDF Page 7
[is] final and valid; and (5) the party against whom the estoppel is asserted.
and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previoLls fomm
. had a full
Sedlack v. BrasweLl Servs. GroUj;L]j]C., 134 F.3d 219,224 (4(h Cir. 1998)'
More than twenty-one (21) months have passed since the District Court dismissed
Appellant's consolidated cases with prejudice, and this decision was affirmed by this Court. The
question of whether Appellant was entitled to dismiss his case without prejudice was previously
litigated, and the District Court's decision is final and valid. Accordingly, Appellant is barred
from re-litigating this issue.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should AFFIRM the Orders of the District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia entered on February 1 and 7, 2001, and award Appellees any
relief deemed just.
Respectfully submitted,
CJRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. and
FJRST NORTH AMERICAN BANK
By Counsel
Robert J. 0 ,III, E .
McGUJREWOODS LL
1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1800
McLean, Virginia 22102
(703) 712-5079
(703) 712-5294 Facsimile
Counsel for Appellees
5
PDF Page 8
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing Appellee's Informal
Briefwas mailed, via first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the following Qro se Appellant:
Joseph R. Johnson, Inmate
40996-083-Unit 1
Federal Prison Camp
P.O. Box 2000
Lewisburg, PA 17837
1>'1
This
7 q day of April, 2001.
CornmLit Doc # 58658vl
6
Back to 
