Lucas v. District of Columbia
214 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Lucas, a former MPD officer, alleges MPD failed to treat his 1972 resignation for Marine Corps service as a military furlough and failed to reemploy him properly, causing reduced federal retirement benefits.
- He filed suit against the District; after an initial dismissal he filed a First Amended Complaint in December 2013 asserting he pursued administrative contacts but did not allege a formal CMPA grievance.
- The District moved to dismiss; on September 30, 2015 the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust CMPA administrative remedies because the complaint did not allege a formal grievance.
- Lucas moved (Nov. 2015) to reconsider and alternatively for leave to amend; he later filed a separate, duplicative complaint in a different case asserting more detailed exhaustion facts.
- The court treated the reconsideration motion as governed by Rule 54(b) (interlocutory orders), rejected Lucas’s contentions that the court made factual or obvious legal errors, and held Lucas could not use reconsideration to add facts known when he filed the amended complaint.
- The court denied reconsideration with prejudice and denied leave to amend without prejudice for failure to attach a proposed amended complaint as required by Local Rule 15.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dismissal for failure to exhaust CMPA remedies should be reconsidered | Lucas contends the court overlooked facts showing he filed a formal grievance or that the court erred as a matter of law | District contends the complaint shows no invocation of CMPA procedures and dismissal was proper | Reconsideration denied under Rule 54(b); court concluded complaint did not allege a formal grievance or CMPA exhaustion |
| Proper procedural rule for reconsideration of dismissal of an amended complaint | Lucas sought relief under Rule 60(b) | District argued interlocutory nature requires Rule 54(b) standard | Court applied Rule 54(b) ("as justice requires") because dismissal of the amended complaint was non-final |
| Whether the court made factual findings at dismissal | Lucas argued the court made mistaken factual findings about filing a grievance | District argued the court accepted plaintiff's allegations and made a legal conclusion that those allegations did not show exhaustion | Court explained Rule 12(b)(6) review accepts allegations as true and the court made a legal determination, not new factual findings |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted despite procedural defects | Lucas asked for leave to file a second amended complaint and later filed a separate complaint with more facts | District opposed amendment or argued procedural compliance required | Leave to amend denied without prejudice because Lucas failed to attach the proposed amended complaint as required by Local Rule 15.1; district court would consider a proper motion anew |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciralsky v. C.I.A., 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (distinguishes dismissal of a complaint from dismissal of an action; interlocutory vs. final)
- Murray v. Gilmore, 406 F.3d 708 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (applies Ciralsky on finality of dismissals)
- Bufford v. District of Columbia Public Schools, 611 A.2d 519 (D.C. 1992) (informal steps alone do not waive prudential exhaustion)
- Dano Res. Recovery Inc. v. District of Columbia, 566 A.2d 483 (D.C. 1989) (delay alone does not satisfy futility exception to exhaustion)
- Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Local Rule 15.1 requires a proposed amended complaint to be attached to a motion for leave to amend)
- Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard: accept allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences)