No. 08-5521.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: August 18, 2009.
BEFORE: Ginsburg, Henderson, and Brown, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto, which includes a request for summary reversal, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the request for summary reversal be denied. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v.Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). “Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.”Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). Although a judgment dismissing an action for lack of jurisdiction will not affect the merits of the case, it does “preclude relitigation of the precise issue of jurisdiction that led to the initial dismissal” unless there have been subsequent developments that “`cure’ the jurisdictional deficiency.” GAF Corp. v.United States, 818 F.2d 901, 912 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The Ninth Circuit already determined that the district courts do not have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s citizenship claim, see Addo v. Carlson, 181 Fed. Appx. 669 (9th Cir. 2006), and appellant has not alleged any intervening change that would now provide the district court with jurisdiction.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Page 1