2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5803
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- William Quezada owned a building, held in his ex-wife Lopez's name, during marriage and after divorce.
- Divorce divided ownership; Quezada received 40% and Lopez held the rest; Lopez later obtained a mortgage without Quezada’s consent.
- Superior Court ordered Lopez to quitclaim to Quezada; transfer was not promptly executed.
- Building includes 12 units, some rented to DC Housing Authority and The Community Partnership; Quezada claims rent payments were misdirected to Lopez.
- Quezada filed pro se under §1983 alleging civil-rights violations; defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a federal claim; federal claims dismissed and supplemental jurisdiction declined.
- Record shows Quezada later proved ownership and began receiving owed payments in 2011-2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any federal-rights claim under §1983 lies against the Mayor. | Quezada alleges district-level officials violated his rights. | Mayor Gray did not act to deprive rights of Quezada; district acts were separate from the Authority. | All federal claims against Mayor Gray dismissed. |
| Whether §1983 claims against Councilmembers prevail. | Council inaction violated his civil rights. | No legal right to intercession; no wrongful act by Councilmembers. | Federal claims against Councilmembers dismissed. |
| Whether The Community Partnership is amenable to §1983 claims. | The Partnership owed him a duty and violated rights by paying Lopez. | No federal right or color-of-state-law basis established. | §1983 claims against The Community Partnership dismissed. |
| Whether DC Housing Authority claims under §1983 survive. | Authority wrongfully paid Lopez; retaliation against tenants alleged. | No federal right or color-of-state-law basis shown; possible class-of-one claim not adequately alleged. | Federal claims against DC Housing Authority officials dismissed; class-of-one theory rejected for lack of similarly situated comparator. |
| Whether ex-wife Lopez is proper §1983 defendant and claims against her survive. | Lopez collected rents owed to Quezada. | Lopez is not a state actor; claims fail under §1983; may have state-law recourse. | Claims against Lopez dismissed; she may be pursued under District law if at all. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (class-of-one equal protection concept; requires intentional disparate treatment with no rational basis)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards; facial plausibility required)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard; must show plausible claim, not mere speculation)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (heightened pleading not required forPrima facie case; general pleading suffices)
- Williams v. United States, 396 F.3d 412 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (distinguishes government-fee duty claims from individual rights claims)