Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia
923 F. Supp. 2d 302
D.D.C.2013Background
- Fox challenges DC's post-and-forfeit procedure following a disorderly conduct arrest and sought release; district court previously dismissed certain counts and allowed a second amended complaint.
- Fox moved for reconsideration; court denied re reconsideration on already-decided issues, citing precedent.
- New counts 4A (Fourth Amendment facial challenge) and 9 (conversion) remain; DC moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Fox opposed.
- Court applies Iqbal/Twombly standard; liberal pleading in plaintiff's favor, but requires plausible facts, not mere conclusions.
- Court grants District's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Counts 4A and 9, and will issue separate orders; reconsideration denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment facial challenge to post-and-forfeit | Fox argues the policy constitutes an unreasonable seizure. | District maintains payment is voluntary and not an unreasonable seizure. | Count 4A fails; no facial violation established. |
| Conversion claim against post-and-forfeit profits | Fox asserts District unlawfully monetizes arrestees' collateral. | District disputes essential elements of conversion as pleaded. | Count 9 fails; conversion not stated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Murphy, 478 F.2d 938 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (recognizes the post-and-forfeit procedure as a salutary option for early release; informs facial challenge analysis)
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (unreasonable-seizure standard for property interference)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (definition of seizure for property)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (voluntary consent standard in seizures)
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (facial challenges require showing no lawful application of policy)
- Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (denial of Rule 54(b) reconsideration when arguments were previously rejected)
- Estate of Gaither v. District of Columbia, 771 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2011) (context for reconsideration standards in this circuit)
- Huthnance v. District of Columbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.D.C. 2011) (policy allegations not applicable to this case)
- McArthur v. Illinois, 531 U.S. 326 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (noted for government interest analysis in warrantless actions)