Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
29 Fair Empl.prac.cas. 620,29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,857louis S. Bullard, Special Agent, Fbi, Plaintiff-appellant, v. William H. Webster, Director, Fbi, Defendants-appellees
- 679 F.2d 92
Louis S. Bullard, pro se.
Penny O. Seaman, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Jerry A. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Biloxi, Miss., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before GEE, GARZA and TATE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
FBI Agent Bullard originally brought suit against the director of the FBI, claiming that his transfer decision was arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and violative of FBI regulations. This action was brought before us, and we dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the transfer decision was committed to agency discretion. Bullard v. Webster, 623 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1980). Bullard presented us with no basis, statutory, regulatory, or otherwise, for reviewing the decision of the FBI. Id. at 1046.
Bullard brought this second action contesting his transfer on the claim of age discrimination under 29 U.S.C. § 633(a). The district court found that his claim was barred by res judicata. If judgment is on the merits, res judicata is an absolute bar in another case on the same cause of action between the same parties not only on the claims presented but also as to every ground as to recovery that might have been presented. Acree v. Airline Pilots Association, 390 F.2d 199, 202-03 (5th Cir. 1968). However, the res judicata effect of a jurisdictional decision, such as we have here, is "not binding as to all matters which could have been raised." Equitable Trust Co. v. Commodity Futures Commission, 669 F.2d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1982). "A jurisdictional dismissal forecloses only those issues of fact or law that were actually litigated and necessarily decided by a valid and final judgment between the parties." Id. We therefore vacate and remand for a decision on the age discrimination claim.
VACATED AND REMANDED.