McCall v. Department of Motor Vehicles
Civil Action No. 2017-1325
| D.D.C. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- In July 2014, Asa McCall attempted to register a used car with the D.C. DMV but was blocked due to outstanding parking/speeding violations on his driving record.
- McCall obtained documents from the Maryland MVA showing some tickets were not his; the DMV removed three violations but left three older fines on his record and refused a hearing.
- McCall (pro se) sued the District of Columbia, several D.C. agencies, Maryland, and the Maryland MVA asserting fraud, negligence, and Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment violations, and sought injunctive relief plus large monetary damages.
- Maryland and the MVA were dismissed after McCall failed to timely respond to their motion to dismiss; the District moved to dismiss the remaining claims.
- The District argued (1) the D.C. agencies lack capacity to be sued, (2) the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply in D.C., (3) no viable Fifth Amendment/Monell claim was pled, and (4) the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- The Court granted the District’s motion: dismissed the named D.C. agencies (non sui juris), rejected Fourteenth Amendment claims, found Monell liability insufficient for Fifth Amendment due-process relief, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law fraud and negligence counts (permitting refiling in D.C. Superior Court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity to be sued (agency liability) | McCall sued DMV, DPW, MPD, DOT as defendants. | District: constituent agencies are non sui juris and cannot be sued absent statutory authorization. | Agencies dismissed for lack of capacity; only the District remains. |
| Applicability of Fourteenth Amendment | McCall alleges equal-protection and due-process violations under Fourteenth Amendment. | District: Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to D.C. | Fourteenth Amendment claims dismissed. |
| Fifth Amendment / Monell municipal liability | McCall alleges due-process and self-incrimination violations by DMV actions/policies. | District: No municipal policy, custom, or deliberate indifference alleged to satisfy Monell. | Fifth Amendment §1983 claims dismissed for failure to plead Monell liability. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | McCall invoked federal jurisdiction to hear fraud and negligence counts. | District: Court should dismiss federal claims and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses state-law claims without prejudice (plaintiff may refile in Superior Court). |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under §1983 requires a policy or custom)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards; legal conclusions not taken as true)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Neild v. District of Columbia, 110 F.2d 246 (D.C. Cir. 1940) (Fourteenth Amendment not applicable in D.C.)
- Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (forms of municipal policy or custom for §1983 liability)