Jones v. National Council on Disability
66 F. Supp. 3d 94
D.D.C.2014Background
- Charles Jones, an African American, sues the National Council on Disability (NCD) and certain officials over an incident at NCD offices involving FPS investigation.
- Jones visited NCD to accompany his wife, a director at NCD, and was allegedly questioned based on racial profiling.
- NCD staff allegedly reported an unknown man in the office; tensions arose after a disputed phone call with NCD Director on maternity leave.
- FPS officers interviewed Jones; he contends he was placed in a custodial-like situation and subjected to scrutiny.
- Jones asserts constitutional rights violations, race discrimination, and various torts; defendants move to dismiss.
- The court certifies certain defendants as acting within scope of employment under the FTCA, limiting defences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones states a Civil Rights Act claim | Jones asserts race-based discrimination by defendants. | Titles I–XI of the Act do not apply to the facts; claim is vague. | Dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars the claims | Jones seeks constitutional and tort relief against NCD staff. | FTCA provides limited waiver; defamation and related claims not waived. | All claims against the United States and its employees are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether Bivens claims for due process and equal protection survive | Individuals should be liable for Fifth Amendment violations. | No conduct shocks the conscience; claims are not viable against the defendants. | Due process and equal protection claims dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Whether there is vicarious liability under Bivens | FPS officers’ actions implicate defendants’ liability. | Vicarious liability does not attach in Bivens actions; must plead own actions. | Dismissed; no vicarious liability. |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1001 supports a private right of action | Rosen and Cokley violated § 1001 by false statements. | § 1001 is criminal and does not create a private civil action. | Dismissed for lack of private right of action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (conclusionary allegations insufficient without factual support)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1993) (exhaustion of administrative remedies prerequisite to FTCA suit)
- Kugel v. United States, 947 F.2d 1504 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (FTCA does not waive immunity for defamation claims)
- Estate of Phillips v. District of Columbia, 455 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (due process shocks the conscience standard under Fifth Amendment)
- Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1954) (equal protection within the Fifth Amendment framework for federal action)