PSYCHAS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1:18-cv-00081

Background

Plaintiffs Ellen Psychas and Bonding Yee built a tree house in 2015 that extended partly over a public alley; they contacted DCRA and DDOT before construction and allege officials gave incorrect guidance about permitting.
DDOT inspectors issued a Stop Work Order after a neighbor complaint; DDOT issued a public-space "balcony" permit covering Nov. 9–20, 2015, and Psychas was told the permit would "close" after ten days.
On Jan. 15, 2016, plaintiffs allege DDOT permitting manager John Stokes accessed Psychas’s TOPS account, changed her password, and submitted a renewal application without her consent; the Public Space Committee (PSC) denied the renewal on Jan. 28, 2016.
Plaintiffs later received (misaddressed) Notices of Violation and pursued administrative challenges; OL hearing dismissed NOVs and OAH matters for jurisdiction/mootness at various points.
Plaintiffs sued DDOT and two employees asserting (inter alia) CFAA claims for unauthorized access to TOPS and Fifth Amendment due process claims (procedural, vagueness, substantive), plus § 1983 and declaratory relief; the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness	Claims seek relief for past harms (CFAA access Jan 2016; constructive revocation) so ripe	Claims contingent on future enforcement fines; not ripe	Court: claims are ripe (alleged harms already occurred)
CFAA — unauthorized access / exceeded authorization	Stokes accessed Psychas’s TOPS without permission, changed password, submitted renewal — exceeded authorized access	TOPS is DDOT system; Stokes had an official account and authority to use DDOT computers; no allegation he used a computer without permission	Court: assumed at 12(b)(6) Stokes exceeded authorized access to user account, but dismissed other §1030 theories based on authorization issue
CFAA — protected computer and authorization	Plaintiffs: TOPS is a protected computer and Stokes acted without authorization	Defendants: CFAA targets devices; plaintiffs fail to allege Stokes used a computer without authorization (he used a DDOT account on DDOT systems)	Court: TOPS user account alterations could show exceeding authorization, but plaintiffs did not allege unauthorized use of the underlying computer, so many CFAA theories dismissed
CFAA — loss/damages required for civil suit	Plaintiffs: potential fines, removal cost (~$5,000), emotional/reputational harm constitute loss	Defendants: statutory "loss" requires economic costs tied to responding to or repairing computer/system damage or interruption of service, with $5,000 threshold	Court: plaintiffs failed to plead CFAA "loss" (no costs tied to computer damage/interruption); civil CFAA claim dismissed
Procedural due process — property interest in permit	Plaintiffs: November 2015 permit vested a property interest; constructive revocation deprived process	Defendants: the November permit expressly expired Nov. 20, 2015; no ongoing entitlement after expiration	Court: no protected property interest after permit expiration; procedural due process claim fails
Vagueness of D.C. regs and Mayor’s Order	Plaintiffs: Titles 12A/24 and Mayor’s Order lack clear standards for PSC review and are vague as applied	Defendants: statutes/regulations and Mayor’s Order provide standards and exceptions; civil scheme tolerates some discretion	Court: regulations not unconstitutionally vague; give fair warning and permissible discretion
Substantive due process	Plaintiffs: DDOT’s conduct (misadvice, unauthorized renewal) was outrageous and gravely unfair	Defendants: conduct does not shock the conscience; plaintiffs lack property interest; no grave unfairness	Court: claim dismissed — no property interest and conduct not sufficiently egregious to violate substantive due process
§ 1983 and Declaratory Relief	Plaintiffs seek § 1983 and declaratory judgments based on the above	Defendants: predicate federal claims fail; no basis for § 1983 or DJA relief	Court: because federal claims dismissed, § 1983 and declaratory claims fail for lack of jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; plausibility)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standards; plausibility)
LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (CFAA: "without authorization" / employer authorization context)
3883 Connecticut LLC v. District of Columbia, 336 F.3d 1068 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (permits can create property interests for due process analysis)
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests arise from independent sources such as state law)
Silverman v. Barry, 845 F.2d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (substantive due process "grave unfairness" standard)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 ("shocks the conscience" standard for substantive due process)
Hedgeye Risk Mgmt., LLC v. Heldman, 271 F. Supp. 3d 181 (D.D.C. 2017) (CFAA authorization analysis)