134 F. Supp. 3d 223
D.D.C.2015Background
- In June 2013 Solomon Davis was struck by a WMATA police cruiser, arrested by WMATA transit officers after a nearby phone-snatching, taken to the hospital and to MPD, and charged (later reduced/dismissed).
- WMATA transit officers executed two forceful home searches under warrants (one June 27, 2013 for guns; another April 22, 2014 for drugs), handcuffing occupants; drug charges were later dismissed.
- Plaintiffs (pro se: mother Judy Davis and children Zuri, Tavares, Solomon) sued WMATA, WMATA officials/officers, MPD and MPD Chief Lanier, U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen (individual capacity), and court‑appointed counsel Daniel Dorsey, asserting a conspiracy and civil rights violations (invoking 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242) and seeking damages and declaratory relief.
- Defendants filed five motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court treated pro se allegations as true for pleading purposes.
- The court dismissed all claims: WMATA and official‑capacity WMATA employees are immune under sovereign immunity; MPD is not suable and claims against Chief Lanier fail for inadequate pleading; criminal statutes §241/§242 do not create private causes of action; Bivens claims against the U.S. Attorney were not pleaded with the requisite individualized conduct; and malpractice/alleged ineffective assistance against Dorsey did not present a federal claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WMATA and official‑capacity WMATA employees are subject to suit in federal court | WMATA transit police acted without authority and conspired to violate civil rights under §§ 241/242 | WMATA enjoys state‑derived sovereign immunity for governmental functions, including policing; official‑capacity suits are suits against WMATA | Dismissed: WMATA and official‑capacity WMATA employees immune under Eleventh Amendment/state‑conferred immunity |
| Whether §241/§242 create private causes of action | Plaintiffs rely on these criminal statutes to assert civil claims for conspiracy and deprivation of rights | These are criminal statutes that do not confer private causes of action | Dismissed: §§ 241/242 cannot support private civil suit |
| Whether MPD and Chief Lanier can be sued for allegedly conferring de facto authority and conspiring with WMATA | Plaintiffs allege MPD/Chief Lanier conferred "de facto" policing authority on WMATA and joined conspiracy | MPD is not a suable entity; plaintiffs allege only conclusory conspiracy facts and misidentify the source of WMATA authority (the WMATA Compact) | Dismissed: MPD not suable; claims against Lanier fail for insufficient conspiracy pleading |
| Whether a Bivens claim lies against U.S. Attorney Machen and whether individual prosecutors are liable | Plaintiffs seek money damages against Machen for assisting with warrants and malicious prosecution | Bivens requires allegation of each official's individualized unconstitutional conduct; prosecutors have absolute/qualified immunities for advocacy/investigative acts | Dismissed: No viable Bivens claim; allegations insufficient and immunity issues prevail |
| Whether court‑appointed counsel Dorsey is liable for inadequate representation and part of conspiracy | Plaintiffs allege Dorsey limited representation to urging a plea and supported the conspiracy | No allegations show Dorsey agreed with defendants to violate rights; ineffective assistance/malpractice is not a federal civil‑rights claim | Dismissed: Conspiracy allegations deficient; decline supplemental jurisdiction over malpractice claim |
| Service on defendant "Herbert Nichols" | Plaintiffs identified Nichols as a WMATA officer who obtained a warrant and was served on the docket | WMATA contends Nichols was never an employee and no valid service occurred; plaintiffs offered no identifying info | Dismissed as futile to permit re‑service given failure to state claims substantively |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (jurisdictional limits of federal courts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to presumption; individualized allegations required)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (official‑capacity suits are suits against the entity)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (Eleventh Amendment applies to suits by a state’s own citizens)
- Jones v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 205 F.3d 428 (WMATA inherits state sovereign immunity under compact)
- Griggs v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 232 F.3d 917 (WMATA transit police possess police powers in D.C. per Compact)
- Burkhart v. WMATA, 112 F.3d 1207 (WMATA immunity includes hiring/training/supervision)
- Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (elements required to plead conspiracy)