McKoy v. Potter

McKoy v. Potter

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

P. KEVIN CASTEL, District Judge:

This is plaintiff Jerome McKoy's fourth attempt to litigate the termination of his employment with the United States Postal Service ("USPS"). He brings this action ("McKoy IV") pro se against John E. Potter, Postmaster General of the United States; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"); and the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO ("NALC"). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other relief under myriad federal and state statutes and regulations. The USPS and NALC move, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The EEOC moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., to  [*2] dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it is entitled to sovereign immunity. NALC also seeks an injunction barring plaintiff from bringing further related litigation without prior court approval. For the reasons explained below, the motions to dismiss are granted and NALC's request for an injunction is granted.

BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The following facts alleged in the complaint are accepted as true for the purposes of this motion, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the light most favorable to plaintiff.

Plaintiff, an African-American male, was hired by the USPS as a letter carrier in June 1994. (Compl. at 19 P 7, 20 P 11.) Upon being hired, plaintiff promptly joined the NALC union. (Id. at 21 P 12.) Initially, plaintiff was a "Part-Time Flexible letter carrier," and in June 1996, he became a "Full-Time career postal service letter carrier." (Id. at 21 PP 13-1 4.) Plaintiff worked at the USPS's Planetarium Station until 1997, when he was transferred to the Old Chelsea Station. (Id. at 21 P 15.)

On or around January 1997, plaintiff signed an agreement to be placed on an "overtime desire" list. (Id. at 21 P 16.) From January 1, 1997 to February 28, 2000, plaintiff  [*3] allegedly "work[ed] holidays, overtime, night differential, penalty time and on plaintiff['s] day off (reset day) for the U.S. Postal Service." (Id. at 21 P 18.) Plaintiff allegedly was entitled to, but was not paid, overtime wages for this work. (Id. at 58 P 110.)

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.