Jackson v. Donovan
2012 WL 574075
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues HUD Secretary Donovan and four James Apartments-related parties under the James Apartment Resident Council (JARC) context.
- Amended complaint asserts claims under the APA and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 alleging civil rights and assembly/participation/right deprivations.
- Plaintiff alleges election as Treasurer of JARC in 2011 and that the JARC President failed to hand over bookkeeping to the elected Treasurer.
- Plaintiff seeks equitable relief and at least $1,000,000 in damages; prior orders denied TRO/preliminary injunction.
- Todman and Redding moved to dismiss (conceded); Donovan moved to dismiss; Haapala dismissed for insufficient service; Dixon’s remaining motion to be resolved separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity bars Donovan official-capacity claim | Donovan participated in alleged misconduct; seeks relief against the United States. | Sovereign immunity bars official-capacity claims against federal officers. | Official-capacity claim dismissed due to sovereign immunity. |
| Plaintiff fails to state a personal-capacity claim against Donovan | Donovan personally involved in withholding tools from James Apartments officers. | Plaintiff fails to plead Donovan’s personal involvement with the alleged wrongdoing. | Personal-capacity claim against Donovan dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
| Todman and Redding motions conceded and should be granted | Opposition argued; not clearly stated in the record. | Plaintiff did not oppose; motions should be granted as conceded. | Todman and Redding motions granted as conceded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571 (D.C.Cir.1997) (unopposed motion may be treated as conceded)
- Fox v. American Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291 (D.C.Cir.2004) (unopposed motion may be treated as conceded)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1994) (agency action and sovereign immunity considerations in federal actions)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (consent required for suit against United States; sovereign immunity)
- Nordic Village, Inc. v. City of Sedona, 503 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1992) (sovereign immunity requires unequivocal express consent)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (official-capacity suits are equivalent to suits against the employer)