Whether federal courts must refuse to dismiss on res-judicata grounds a second claim against the same defendant that is based on different facts, evidence, and or claims that did not exist nor could have been possibly brought at the time of filing a prior claim, thus establishing the time of filing of the first action as a bright-line

QUESTION PRESENTED In #lkharwily v. Franciscan Health System, No. Case No. C17-5838-RBL (Zikharwily I/) Plaintiff pleaded incidents of fraud on the court which occurred after he had raised other and earlier incidents of fraud on the court in post-trial motion in H/kharwily Iand after the district court in E/kharwily [had ruled on them. The district court in E/kharwily I dismissed the second case entirely on res judicata grounds. The district court in Elkharwily IT did not follow the “bright line” of the Ninth Circuit which forecloses application of res judicata where a subsequent case involves facts ‘ . and claims not existing and could not possibly have been brought at the time of commencing the earlier . adjudication. The Court of Appeals likewise did not follow nor did it address the law argued by Elkharwily ; regarding the “bright line” rule and affirmed the district court judgments. The lower courts, even within the same circuits, have expressed conflicting views on this rule. There is no statement of the law by The Supreme Court precluding lower courts from imposing res judi cata dismissals where facts not existing at the time of filing the previous action are alleged in a second action, or in a case such as this, at the time post trial relief was requested in the previous lawsuit. This Court is petitioned to use this case as a vehicle to establish “the bright line” rule in the federal courts and prevent gross miscarriage of justice in my case and others. Thus, the question presented is: Whether federal courts must refuse to dismiss on res judicata grounds a second claim against the same defendant that is based on different facts, evidence, and or claims that did not exist nor could have been possibly brought at the time of filing a prior claim, thus ii establishing the time of filing of the first action as a bright line. iii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW United States District Court Western District of Washington Case No. 3:15-cv-05579-RJB Alaa Elkharwily v. Franciscan Health System . 6/4/2017 Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Relief from Judgment—Rule 60 5/9/2017 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order United States District Court Western District of Washington Case No. C17-5838-RBL Alaa Elkharwily v. Franciscan Health System 2/2/2018 Order for Dismissal United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit Nos. 17-35009 & 18-35090 (Consolidated) Alaa Elkharwily v. Franciscan Health System 6/7/2019 Order Affirming District Court Judgments 9/5/2019 Order Denying Rehearing .