Bond v. U.S. Department of Justice
828 F. Supp. 2d 60
D.D.C.2011Background
- Bond v. DOJ and Washington Post involves pro se plaintiff alleging civil rights violations and tort claims arising from DOJ's alleged failure to investigate his 2005 and 2010 referrals and from a Washington Post article about his life story; Court considers motions to dismiss/transfer and Bond's motion to amend; prior related litigation and copyright, custody, and FOIA actions form background; article publication May 31, 2009 by Roig-Franzia is central; Bond seeks damages, injunctive relief, and Constitutional remedies; sovereign immunity and venue issues are raised; the court dismisses the complaint and denied amendment
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity bar on damages against DOJ and officials | Bond seeks monetary relief for alleged constitutional violations | DOJ sovereign immunity precludes money damages against the agency and officials | Damages against DOJ/officials are barred by sovereign immunity |
| Whether mandamus/injunctive relief is available | Bond seeks orders to investigate and retrieve property | No due process right to DOJ Inspector General investigation; mandamus not available for discretionary acts | Mandamus/injunctive relief denied |
| Whether venue/subject matter jurisdiction exist for federal claims | Venue proper; claims arise from actions by DOJ | Venue/ jurisdiction issues exist; amendments futile | Court lacks jurisdiction over monetary claims; venue discussion declining to transfer; dismisses on merits |
| Whether defamation/IIED claims against Post are time-barred | May 31, 2009 article harmed Bond; tolling arguments | Claims are time-barred by a one-year DC statute of limitations; intertwining doctrine applies to IIED | Defamation and IIED claims time-barred; intertwined with defamation rule authorities |
| Whether proposed second amended complaint against DOJ officials is futile | Amendment adds individual DOJ officials; seeks potential Bivens claims | Amendment futile; lacks personal involvement pleading; sovereign immunity barriers | Denied; amendment futile under pleading standards |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (sovereign immunity from suit absent waiver)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity and government liability constraints)
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (private right to prosecute others not recognized; no due process right to investigation)
- Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271 (1988) (clear and indisputable right required for mandamus relief)
- Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (standard for exercising jurisdiction and related considerations)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires plausible claims beyond bare statements)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading standard requiring plausible entitlement to relief)
- Jankovic v. Int’l Crisis Grp., 494 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (defamation/IIED intertwined and timely action considerations)
- Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (expedite dismissal in insubstantial Bivens actions to avoid frivolous refiling)