Williams v. USA, et al

*Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 13, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60471
Summary Calendar
LUTHER WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(3:05-CV-499)
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Luther Williams appeals the district court’s

-- 1 of 3 --

2
order dismissing his claims against the United States of America
Veterans Administration (hereinafter “V.A.”) . In 2005, Williams
brought the present suit against the V.A. alleging the V.A. violated
his constitutional rights by foreclosing and taking possession of his
residence after he defaulted on a home-loan. Because the district
court found these arguments were raised or reasonably could have
been raised in a prior proceeding, it dismissed on
res judicata
grounds. We affirm.
In 2000, the V.A. brought an action in federal court against
Williams to take possession of his residence based on his default of
a V.A. loan. The loan was secured by his residence located at 5222
Nantucket Drive, Hinds County, Mississippi. Williams counter-
claimed, alleging fraud. The district court dismissed Williams’ fraud
claim and awarded the V.A. possession of the property.
In 2005 Williams filed this suit alleging damages related to the
foreclosure and seeking ownership of the property. Based on our de
novo review, we affirm.
Res judicata is appropriate when: (1) the parties are identical
in the two actions; (2) the prior judgment was rendered by a court

-- 2 of 3 --

3
of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior judgment is a final judgment
on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action is involved
in both cases.
Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559
(5th Cir. 2004). The doctrine bars the subsequent litigation of claims
that have been litigated or should have been raised in an earlier suit.
Id.
Clearly, the first three requirements are met here. Further,
although Williams cites the correct standard in his briefing before
this court, he does not convince us that the present suit involves
claims different than the prior suit. In fact, the issues raised by
Williams involve the same “nucleus of operative facts,” as the prior
suit.
Eubanks v. F.D.I.C., 977 F.2d 166, 171 (5th Cir. 1992). These
issues either were raised, or should have been raised in the prior suit
concerning the foreclosure. Thus, Williams’ suit was properly
dismissed under the doctrine of
res judicata.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --