Jackson v. Donovan
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55517
D.D.C.2012Background
- Jackson, a DC resident, sued Dixon and others (JARC actors) alleging civil rights and APA claims related to governance of the James Apartments.
- The amended complaint is complex; several defendants were previously dismissed; Dixon remained as the defendant in this memorandum opinion.
- Plaintiff asserts due process, rights to assembly, voting, association, movement, privacy, and choice, claiming Dixon operated a ‘renegade’ council and conspired to deprive rights.
- Plaintiff asserts a civil conspiracy claim and alleges wrongdoing across administrations, including alleged fraudulent elections funded via JARC.
- Dixon moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; plaintiff opposed, arguing conspiracy and rights violations.
- The court grants Dixon’s motion to dismiss, concluding the complaint fails to state actionable claims and that civil conspiracy is not an independent private tort.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the civil conspiracy claim actionable on its own? | Plaintiff contends conspiracy violated federal rights and can support a private action. | Dixon argues civil conspiracy is not an independent tort and lacks basis for private action. | Conspiracy not independent; fails as private claim. |
| Do §1983, §1985(3), and §1986 claims proceed against Dixon? | Plaintiff seeks relief under these civil rights statutes for deprivation of federally protected rights. | Claims require state actor status and underlying federal rights; allegations insufficient. | Claims fail; no plausible §1983/§1985(3)/§1986 claims against Dixon. |
| Did Dixon act under color of state law or involve a constitutionally cognizable conspiracy? | Conspiracy across federal and local defendants violated rights and involved state action. | No showing Dixon acted under color of law or discriminatory animus; not properly pleaded. | Not established; no color-of-law basis or valid conspiracy under pleading standards. |
| Does the complaint plausibly state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)? | Amended complaint shows entitlement to relief with factual allegations of fraud and rights violations. | Allegations are naked and conclusory, not warranting relief under Twombly/Iqbal standards. | Complaint insufficient; dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Washington Gas Light Co., 481 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2006) (civil conspiracy not an independent tort; underlying wrong required)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility pleading standard; naked assertions insufficient)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Hill v. Medlantic Health Care Grp., 933 A.2d 314 (D.C. 2007) (civil conspiracy as liability theory, not standalone tort)
- Mazloum v. District of Columbia, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006) (§1985(3) conspiracy requires a protected right and discriminatory animus)
- Nelson v. Williams, 750 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2010) (civil conspiracy pleading deficiencies; absence of cognizable right)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1971) (pervasive discussion of interracial or class-based conspiracy standards)
- McCord v. Bailey, 636 F.2d 606 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (conspiracy as liability theory; not standalone cause of action)