Hubert PHILOGENE, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Et Al., Defendants
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72825
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiff Hubert Philogene operated The Lime, a restaurant/nightclub in DC, from 2004–2007; he was cited/arrested for operating without a proper permit, convicted in July 2007, and sentenced to five days’ imprisonment.
- Sergeant Kenneth W. Mack of MPD cited him for the same offense in early 2007 and arrested him in July 2007.
- Plaintiff filed suit in May 2008; case was removed to federal court; Mack was added as a defendant in the second amended complaint in May 2011.
- Plaintiff asserts federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and statutory claims under §1985(3) and §1986, and also asserts common-law claims.
- Court applies Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, and grants defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- Court notes that Mack’s claims are time-barred and that the District’s §1983 claim fails for lack of a Monell policy or custom; related §1985/§1986 claims fail for lack of plausible facts and prerequisites.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff states a viable §1983 claim against the District | Philogene alleges a District policy/custom caused his rights to be violated by Mack | District cannot be held liable absent a policy or custom; no factual basis for Monell liability | Dismissed: no plausible Monell claim against the District |
| Whether §1985(3) and §1986 claims against the District survive | Plaintiff pleads discriminatory conspiracy under §1985(3) and §1986 | No official policy; conspiracy unsupported; §1986 requires a colorable §1985 claim | Dismissed: no viable §1985/§1986 claims against the District |
| Whether claims against Sergeant Mack are time-barred | Amendments relate back to original filing; not served timely | Service on Mack occurred May 2011; barred by 3-year/DC limitations; no relation back under Rule 15(c) | Time-barred: claims against Mack dismissed; no relation back because notice requirements not met |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims | State-law claims should proceed in federal court | All federal claims dismissed, so declining jurisdiction appropriate | Declines supplemental jurisdiction; remands remaining claims to Superior Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard; liberal construction of complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requires plausible, not merely conceivable, claims)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (establishes municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Kruрski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (S. Ct. 2010) (what a defendant knew/should have known for relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii))
- Rendall-Speranza v. Nassim, 107 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (relation-back doctrine for mistaken identity under Rule 15(C))
- Carney v. American University, 151 F.3d 1090 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (DC law 3-year limitations for §1983 claims; §1985/§1986 interplay)