Jose Mendes Da Costa v. City of Mount Vernon Police Officer Pereira, et al.

Whether the right to petition the government for redress of grievances in 42 U.S.C. § 1983, U.S. Const. Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the concepts set out by this Court in Lawler and Carstarphen, is violated by the procedure we challenge, that is, the claim preclusion Res Judicata, Bar Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the opinion is not a fact of Law, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 10-CV-4125, U.S. Const. Fourth Amend­ ment, battery assault, on November 27, 2008, decided on the case facts by a stipulation of settlement, and dismissal with prejudice at the U.S.D.C. for the S.D.N.Y. on November 8,2012, do not preclude the sub­ sequent continued course of conduct in December 7, 2012,18-CV-2948, and contradicts American Jurispru­ dence 2d Judgments § 460; time of accrual of cause of action as test for claim preclusion. If the cause of action in the second action arises after the rendition of the judgment in the first action, it is a different cause of action not barred by the prior judgment. Lawler v. Na­ tional Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 75 S Ct. 865, 99 L. Ed. 1122 (1955); Carstarphen v. Milsner, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (2009).

Whether the right to a trial by a jury man­ dated by Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and U.S. Const, art. Ill § 2, cl. 3, and the concepts set out by this Court in Apprendi, and Alleyne, was vio­ lated when the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, affirm the District Court opinion of claim preclusion res judicata Bar Order under 28 U.S.C. §1651, an Appellate Court sitting as a fact finder r ! fHVOOHH' &;■■ 11 m I