Ohendalski v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RICHARD S. OHENDALSKI,
Plaintiff,
versus
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-03316
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Richard S. Ohendalski proceeds here pro se.
He filed this lawsuit seeking federal income tax refunds
under 8 USC §7422. Dkt 1. Defendant United States of
America filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment under Rule 56. Dkt 6.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. Dkt 4. She issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that this action be
dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) because the
asserted claims are barred by res judicata. Dkt 17. This is
based on two related actions in which Plaintiff’s tax
liabilities for the years at issue (2002, 2003, and 2004) were
adjudicated (a) in a United States Tax Court decision later
affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, and (b) in the Government’s
later action in this Court to collect on outstanding taxes.
See Richard Ohendalski & Kay Ohendalski v
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 19021-12 (TC June
12, 2014), aff’d, 605 F App’x 457 (5th Cir 2015, per curiam);
Dkt. 6-1 at 3-5 (copy of the Tax Court opinion); United
States v Ohendalski, 2024 WL 2094656 (SD Tex).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03316 Document 20 Filed 02/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Plaintiff filed objections, arguing that res judicata
doesn’t apply because (i) the prior action in Tax Court
involved a settlement and thus wasn’t a final judgment on
the merits, and (ii) his current refund action is a “distinct
cause of action” from prior deficiency proceedings. Dkt 18.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Upon de novo review and determination, Ohendalski’s
objections lack merit.
The Fifth Circuit holds that res judicata bars actions
where in a prior and subsequent action (i) the parties are
“identical or in privity,” (ii) final judgment issued on the
merits in the prior action, (iii) by “a court of competent
jurisdiction,” and (iv) both actions involved the same claims
or causes of action. In re Southmark Corp, 163 F3d 925, 934
(5th Cir 1999) (citation omitted). Ohendalski’s objections
go to the second and fourth elements.
As to whether the prior action concluded by a final
judgment on the merits, Ohendalski maintains that the Tax
Court case didn’t because it “involved default judgment
and stipulated settlement, not a final adjudication of
whether Plaintiff’s gross income was lawful taxable
income.” Dkt 18 at 3. But a judgment reached by agreement
is “entitled to full res judicata effect.” Matter of Teal,
16 F3d 619, 622 (5th Cir 1994). As such, the the judgment
by the Tax Court regarding Plaintiff’s tax liability is a final
judgment on the merits entitled to preclusive effect.
As to whether the same claim or cause of action was
involved in both actions, Plaintiff argues that this case
Case 4:25-cv-03316 Document 20 Filed 02/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
presents a distinct cause of action—refund claims—rather
than the prior deficiency proceedings. Dkt 18 at 2. But
under the Fifth Circuit’s “transactional test,” the inquiry
as to this element doesn’t turn on whether the legal
theories are identical. Instead, the key issue is whether
both actions arise from the “same nucleus of operative
facts.” Eubanks v FDIC, 977 F2d 166, 171 (5th Cir 1992).
And here, the earlier and current actions arise from the
“same nucleus of operative facts,” being the extent of
Plaintiff’s tax liability for 2002, 2003, and 2004.
As such, the present tax refund claims are barred by
res judicata.
The objections by Plaintiff Richard S. Ohendalski to
the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 18.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 17.
The motion by Defendant United States of America to
dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 6.
This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
February 26, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-03316 Document 20 Filed 02/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3