Faison v. District of Columbia
907 F. Supp. 2d 82
D.D.C.2012Background
- Faison sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging DC’s continued retention of seized property violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
- Plaintiff alleges MPD seized $2,511 and a 1993 Ford Crown Victoria at arrest on February 14, 1999 for trafficking offenses; property later declared forfeited to DC in 1999.
- Criminal case shows Faison pled guilty on June 25, 1999 to carrying a firearm during a trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); sentenced to 60 months with three years of supervised release.
- DC’s supplemental filings indicate the car and cash were forfeited in 1999 and that the whereabouts of the property could not be determined in 2010.
- DC moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Faison failed to plead a constitutional claim supported by municipal policy or custom.
- Court grants DC’s motion, finding no factual basis in the complaint for a policy or custom causing the alleged Fifth Amendment violation, and thus no § 1983 claim against DC
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a viable §1983 due process claim against DC | Faison alleges DC retained forfeited property violated due process | DC contends no municipal policy or custom caused the violation | No viable claim; dismissal granted for lack of Monell policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (due process and equal protection implications relevant to federal action and notice)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (monell liability requires policy or custom moving the violation)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (establishes municipal liability for official policy or custom)
- Pembauer v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (deliberate choice to follow a course of action; moving force behind violation)
- Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985) (requires a deliberate city policy linking to the injury)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) (no heightened pleading standard for Monell claims)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard for complaint")
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (establishes plausibility standard; factual content required)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)