The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ricardo M. Urbina United States District Judge
Re Document Nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 18, 19, 24
GRANTING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS;GRANTING DEFENDANT CLAYTOR'S MOTION TO DISMISS;DISMISSING SUA SPONTE THE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICE,BABERS,BUTLER,MATTHEWS AND GLASSOR
The pro se plaintiff has brought suit against the District of Columbia ("the District"), the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"), various DMV employees and a DMV contractor, Affiliated Computer Services ("ACS"). He alleges that the defendants have interfered with his business of "assisting persons and businesses with parking and moving violation matters." Two of the defendants -- the District and DMV employee Cassandra Claytor -- have filed motions to dismiss. Because the plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claims, the court grants these defendants' motions to dismiss and sua sponte dismisses the claims against the remaining defendants.
A. Factual Background*fn1
The plaintiff is an individual engaged in the business of "assisting persons and businesses with parking and moving violation matters."*fn2 See Compl. at 1. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have "devised numerous . . . tactics that interfere with the plaintiff's efforts to assist persons and business[es] with parking and traffic ticket problems at the District of Columbia [DMV]." Id. at 2. Among these "tactics" are the refusal by the DMV clerk to schedule hearings for the plaintiff, the public's lack of access to online scheduling for parking ticket hearings and the refusal by hearing officers to proceed with hearings when the police officer who issued the ticket fails to appear or when a required affidavit is unattainable. Id. at 2, 7. The plaintiff also states that a District of Columbia law is interfering with his business by denying enrollees of a DMV program called the "fleet program" the ability to challenge their parking tickets.*fn3 Id. at 2. The plaintiff does not indicate that he is a participant in this program. See generally Compl.
Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that DMV officials were "punishing" him by changing the format of parking tickets. Id. at 8.The old format of parking tickets required police officers to check the "owner box" on the ticket, which presumably would require that a vehicle's owner be held liable for the ticket. Id. DMV officials requested that the D.C. Council modify the parking tickets so as to not require that the "owner box" be checked. Id. at 8.
According to the plaintiff, the defendants have "created what came to be known as 'The Dorsey Rules,' a group of discriminatory artifices that target the plaintiff." Id. at 4. One of these rules allows the chief hearing examiner to ban the plaintiff from the DMV building for a time period which she deems appropriate if it is discovered that the plaintiff gave a DMV employee anything of value. Id. The plaintiff claims that this rule, which is incorporated into the "Municipal Regulations," is not enforced against "other representatives."*fn4 Id.
In addition, the plaintiff's complaint presents the following broad allegations, though with little if any factual context:
(1) The DMV management "maintain[s] a gender-based hierarchy. . . that deliberately excludes males." Id. at 6.
(2) Defendants David Glasser and Desiree Matthews made a false written claim that the plaintiff sexually harassed Matthews without providing ...