*30 SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Rollock, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the District Court dismissing his complaint, sua sponte, as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Rollock alleges that the District Court erred in (a) raising the issue of res judicata sua sponte and (b) holding that his claim was barred by res judicata. “We review de novo the District Court’s application of the principles of res judicata.” EDP Med. Computer Sys., Inc. v. United States, 480 F.3d 621, 624 (2d Cir. 2007).

The District Court did not err when it sua sponte raised the issue of res judicata. Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 347 F.3d 394, 398 n. 4 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[A] court is free to raise [the] defense [of res judicata] sua sponte, even if the parties have seemingly waived it.”). Indeed, after an independent and thorough review, we conclude, for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its well-reasoned order, Rollock v. LaBarbera, No. 09-civ-5736 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 23, 2009), that Rollack’s claim is barred by res judicata.

Finally, we hold that Rollock’s attempt to invoke the “declaratory judgment exception” is unavailing. “As this Court has previously stated, the declaratory judgment exception to the application of the doctrine of res judicata applies when the prior action involved only a request for declaratory relief.” Duane Reade, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 600 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Rollock’s prior claim sought injunctive as well as declaratory relief, see Rollock v. Stine, Civ. A. 6:06-61, 2006 WL 950186 at *2 (E.D.Ky. 2006), the declaratory judgment exception is unavailable. See Giannone v. York Tape & Label, Inc., 548 F.3d 191, 194 (2d Cir. 2008).

CONCLUSION

We have considered each of defendant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.