Stinson v. CUNY

Background

Marcus Stinson brought this action without a lawyer against CUNY, the City University Construction Fund, and CUNY employees Sonia Pearson and Pamela Silverblatt. The opinion states that Stinson worked for CUNY as an Office Assistant until he was fired on August 18, 2017. He had previously filed several actions concerning employment discrimination and retaliation connected to his employment and firing.

In this action, Stinson repeated employment discrimination and retaliation claims. He also sought to have the decision in an earlier round of the case set aside and requested a full refund, with interest, for his CUNY degree. The court described this action as his most recent attempt to challenge his firing.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied claim preclusion, a rule that generally prevents a person from bringing claims that were already decided, or could have been brought, in an earlier case involving the same opposing party. The court explained that the rule applies when an earlier case resulted in a decision on the merits, involved the same opposing party or a legally connected party, and involved claims that were raised or could have been raised in that earlier case.

The court concluded that these requirements were met. It found that Stinson’s prior actions against the defendants were based on the same events described in the current complaint and that the earlier actions had been decided on the merits. The court therefore ruled that the current claims were barred by claim preclusion. Because the defects could not be cured by amendment, the court declined to grant leave to amend the complaint.

Disposition and order to show cause

The court dismissed Stinson’s complaint as barred by claim preclusion. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Separately, the court ordered Stinson to show cause—that is, to explain why a filing restriction should not be imposed. Within 30 days of the order, he was required to submit a declaration explaining why he should not be barred from filing future actions in this court asserting employment discrimination or retaliation claims against CUNY and its employees concerning his prior employment at CUNY unless he first obtained court permission. The court stated that the restriction would be imposed if he failed to submit the declaration or if it did not show good cause. The order did not yet impose that restriction. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.