court cautioned that any further request for post-judgment reconsideration, alteration, or modification of the court’s order could result in further monetary sanctions. Undeterred, Mr. Leo then filed a motion for leave to file a Rule 60(b) motion, which the court denied in a May 10, 2011 order. In light of Mr. Leo’s pro se status, we construe his filings liberally. See Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n. 1 (10th Cir.2007). But a liberal construction of his papers does nothing for Mr. Leo because his arguments are based upon a misconception of the en if the 2007 online application and the 2008 applications were separate transactions, there is no reason why Mr. Leo’s claims concerning his 2007 application could not have been asserted in his first action. See id. at 503-04 (<HOLDING>) (quotation marks omitted). Further, it does
holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes holding that any claim that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal is barred from review on post conviction under the doctrine of res judicata holding that ujnder res judicata or claim preclusion a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties  from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in the prior action holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action holding that 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