UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
April 6, 2009
GEORGE E. CARTER, PLAINTIFF,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John D. Bates United States District Judge
In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sues the District of Columbia Department of Corrections and the United States Parole Commission. He alleges that defendants violated the Constitution's ex post facto clause by "failing to execute the 'old' parole laws and regulations for the D.C. Municipal Regulations" at his parole rehearing in March 2006. Compl. at 2. The District of Columbia, which is hereby substituted as the proper local defendant, moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.*fn1
Effective August 5, 1998, the United States Parole Commission assumed exclusive authority over parole determinations of District of Columbia prisoners convicted of felonies, and the District of Columbia Board of Parole was subsequently abolished. D.C. Code §§ 24-131, 133; see Franklin v. District of Columbia, 163 F.3d 625, 632 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("after August 1998 the Board of Parole no longer had jurisdiction to conduct parole eligibility hearings for the District's felon inmates"). Because the District of Columbia had no authority over plaintiff's parole proceedings in 2006, the Court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the movant. See Gant v. Reilly, 224 F. Supp.2d 26, 37 (D.D.C. 2002) ("With the enactment of the Revitalization Act [codified at D.C. Code § 24-131], Congress has taken its delegation of parole authority away from the District of Columbia government and has returned it to the federal government."). Hence, the District of Columbia's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is granted. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.