OPINION

Edward Salerno, Terry Traylor, and Joseph Aruanno filed separate pro se actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that various state officials (“Defendants”) violated their rights under the First Amendment. The District Court entered summary judgment against Salerno and dismissed the complaints of Traylor and Aruanno for failure to state a claim.

In the cases of Salerno and Traylor, the District Court found in favor of the Defendants on qualified immunity grounds. The District Court dismissed Aruanno’s complaint after finding that he had previously asserted the same claims unsuccessfully before the District Court and this court on appeal. All three Appellants timely appealed. We consolidated their appeals and appointed pro bono counsel. 1

I.

Appellants are civilly confined at the Special Treatment Unit (“STU”) in New Jersey pursuant to the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”). As part of their treatment at STU, Appellants were encouraged to participate in “discussion therapy,” during which residents join to discuss their sexual histories. Appellants refused to participate in this therapy and, as a result, were deprived of employment and certain other benefits, including television and hygienic items. Appellants then filed their complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants retaliated against them in violation of their rights under the First Amendment. In addition to damages, each Appellant sought non-monetary relief.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Salerno’s First Amendment claim which they supported by an affidavit. The District Court treated the motion to dismiss as a Motion for Summary Judgment which it granted, concluding that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. 2 In *122 considering Traylor’s claims, the District Court also found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity but dismissed his complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Finally, the Court dismissed Aruanno’s claim on the ground that “the allegations set forth in the [c]omplaint ... appear to be subsumed by the allegations made by [Aruanno in a previous action].” App. at 65; see also App. at 67. 3

Jurisdiction was proper in the District Court based on 28 U.S.C. § 1831. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the District Court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, see Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 232-33 (3d Cir. 2004), as well as its entry of summary judgment, see Renchenski v. Williams, 622 F.3d 315, 324 (3d Cir. 2010).

II.

Appellants contend that the District Court improperly relied on qualified immunity to dispose of Salerno’s and Traylor’s claims for equitable relief under § 1983. We agree. However, we find that the District Court correctly dismissed Aruan-no’s claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion.

Claim preclusion “bars a party from initiating a second suit against the same adversary based on the same ‘cause of action’ as the first suit.” Duhaney v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 621 F.3d 340, 347 (3d Cir. 2010). Claim preclusion is properly applied where there has been: “(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving; (2) the same parties or their privies; and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same causes of action.” Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 260 (3d Cir. 2010). Here, the “same cause of action” and “final judgment on the merits” elements are easily satisfied, as Aruanno raised his current allegations in a previous action before the District Court, which the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim-a judgment which this court affirmed. 4 See Aruanno v. Spagnuolo, No. 07-2056, 2007 WL 3026837 (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2007), aff'd, 292 Fed.Appx. 184 (3d Cir. 2008).

The “same parties or their privies” element is also satisfied in Aruanno’s case. Aruanno brought his previous action in the District Court against four individuals at the STU, including Merrill Main. Aruanno’s current complaint also names Merrill Main but adds the former governor of New Jersey and the STU’s assistant administrator as defendants. The term “privity” is used merely as “a way to express the conclusion that nonparty preclusion is appropriate on any ground.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 894 n. 8, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). Thus, the various connections between STU employees and the New Jersey Governor’s Office provide ample grounds to find the privity requirement satisfied. For example, the primary budgeting source for the STU is the state, 5 and STU employees advance common goals as agents of a sin *123 gle employer. This alignment of interests satisfies the privity requirement and precludes Aruanno’s current action.

On the other hand, the District Court erred by applying qualified immunity to bar the claims of Salerno and Traylor for prospective relief. Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for any action that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). However, it is well established that qualified immunity does not bar actions for prospective relief, such as an injunction or declaratory judgment. See, e.g., Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 244 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[T]he defense of qualified immunity is available only for damages claims — not for claims requesting prospective injunctive relief.”); Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518, 527 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to damage liability; it does not bar actions for declaratory or injunctive relief.”).

In addition to their claims for damages, Salerno and Traylor pleaded claims for prospective relief. App. at 100. (Salerno’s complaint, seeking “[t]o be restored back to the position occupied before” the claimed violations); App. at 198 (Traylor’s complaint, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief). Therefore, the District Court erred in concluding that qualified immunity barred all of Salerno and Traylor’s First Amendment claims. Although we agree with Defendants that Salerno and Traylor did not squarely raise this issue before the District Court, 6 this court has discretionary power to address issues that are raised for the first time on appeal, particularly where: 1) the “argument omitted in the District Court is a pure question of law,” 2) the proper resolution of the legal question is “reasonably certain,” and 3) failing to consider the omitted argument would “result in ... substantial injustice.” Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252, 256 (3d Cir. 2005). That is precisely the situation here, as it is clear that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not bar claims for prospective relief — a pure question of law — and failure to consider this issue would unjustly deprive Salerno and Traylor of an opportunity to assert their § 1983 claims. 7

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Aruanno’s claim in all respects. However, we will reverse the District Court’s orders dismissing Salerno’s and Traylor’s § 1983 claims for prospective relief. We will remand their claims to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.