◆ SpookStack

“ , QO ; O Furthermore, it is apparent from plaintiff’s prior suits filed in various federal courts, that plaintiff has previously litigated some if not all of the claims he raises in the present complaint. Federal common law governs the preclusive effect of a federal court. . judgment in a subsequent federal court case. See Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979). Under the doctrine of 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). In Allen v. McCurry, the United States Supreme Court determined that res judicata generally applies to civil rights actions. Id. To the extent that plaintiff’s claims wera or could have been raised in his previous litigation, plaintiff is precluded from bringing them in the present action. Plaintiff has filed a multitude of civil actions against most if not all of the defendants named in the present complaint, alleging claims identical to those in this action.’ Because thé assertions in the present complaint have already been adjudicated or should have been raised because the claims were encompassed in plaintiff’s cause of 3 he following is just a partial listing of lawsuits previously filed by plaintiff. See Jones v. Oiker, No. 87-2068 (8th Cir., Dec 2, 1987); Jones v. Hadican, et al., No. 87~-1513EM (8th Cir., May 11, 1987); Jones _v. Hadican, et _al., No 86- 1251C(3), (E.D. Mo., March 30, 1987); Jones v. United States, et al., No. 81-1328 (8th Cir., April 23, 1981); Jones v. United States © ° ica, et al., No. 82-1904-EM (8th Cir., September,17, 1982); Jones v. Biden, et al., No. 91-2141 (D.D.C., September.27, 1991), aff'd, 988 F.2d 1280 (Table) (D.C. Cir. 1993); Jones v. Hadican, et al., No. 84-CV-4281-DT (E.D. Mich., October, 17, 1984), aff'd, 779 F.2d 51 (6th Cir. 1985). 10