United States District Court, District of Columbia
Kwasi Seitu, Washington, DC, pro se.
Joseph Alphonso Gonzalez, Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident proceeding pro se, sues the District of Columbia, the Director of the District's Department of Motor Vehicles (" DMV" ), the current and former Director of the District's Department of Public Works (" DPW" ), " all Past and Present Members of the D.C. City Council," and four former D.C. mayors. Civil Rights Action for Damages With Jury Demand (" Compl." ) [Dkt. # 1] at 1, 2. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief and monetary damages for alleged constitutional and statutory violations stemming from defendants' " persistent failure and refusal to address, arrest, and correct the ... ‘ mis-management’ of information regarding the payment or dismissal of parking tickets ... resulting in the repeat billing on those tickets, the wrongful seizure and disposition of property, and the wrongful infringement on driving privileges[.]" Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that such behavior has been occurring since 1981 and that he has been personally affected since 1997. See id. at 3-4.
Defendant District of Columbia moves to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or for summary judgment under Rule 56. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 14]. Defendant asserts, among other defenses, that plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff counters that his claims are timely " due to the fact that the conduct of Defendants is ongoing and forms a criminal enterprise under 18 U.S.C. [sic]." Pl.'s Response to the Mot. to Dismiss or Summ. J. in the Alternative (" Pl.'s Opp'n" ) [Dkt. # 16] ¶ 1.
Since plaintiff filed this action well beyond the District's three-year statute of limitations and, as a pro se party, cannot assert claims on behalf of any other individuals, the Court finds that this action is time-barred and, thus, will grant defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the Court will not address defendant's other enumerated grounds for dismissal. See Def's. Mot. ¶¶ 2-8.
In addition, the Court will deny plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice of Certain Facts Raising Questions as to the Validity of the Court [Dkt # 21], since the asserted facts are " subject to reasonable dispute" and, thus, cannot be judicially noticed, Fed.R.Evid. 201(b), and will deny plaintiff's Motion to Correct Void Judgments and Judicial Misconduct [Dkt. # 24] for want of jurisdiction.
The pertinent facts are as follows. Plaintiff's vehicle was seized on January 30, 1997, for unpaid tickets. Compl. at 3-4. When plaintiff went to the DPW to retrieve his vehicle, he " realized that the tickets, with the exception of one issued the morning that the vehicle was [allegedly] stolen, were either paid [or] dismissed, and one was still pending mail adjudication." Id. at 4 ¶ 6. " [O]n March 30, 1997, [plaintiff] was sent a notice ..., informing him that DPW had seized his vehicle on January 30, and would sell his vehicle fourteen days from that date and in fact, did auction off his vehicle on February 14, 1997." Id. ¶ 8.
In June 1997, plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against DPW and the District " for unlawful conversion, and [against] his insurer AllState for breach of contract." Id. ¶ 9; see also Def.'s Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Dispute (" Def.'s Facts" ) [Dkt. # 14] ¶ 1. Following trial, a jury awarded plaintiff a judgment in the amount of $7,500, plus interest. Def.'s Facts ¶ 2 & Ex. 2 (Case Docket, Seitu v. District of Columbia, 1997 CA 003396 (Super.Ct. Mar. 29, 2001)). On August 10, 2001, the District issued a check to plaintiff for $7,655.21, which plaintiff appears to have endorsed and cashed. Id. ¶ 3 & Ex. 4 (Decl. of Victoria Syphax filed in Superior Court case). " [S]hortly" thereafter, the DMV " revoked the Plaintiff's driver's license and placed a national block on his obtaining a license in any other state, something that the Plaintiff would not learn of for nearly two years when he went to renew his license." Compl. at 6 ¶ 23.
Plaintiff " eventually" learned that the DMV had relied on a DUI ticket issued in South Carolina to revoke his driver's license. Id. at 7 ¶ 25. In 2010, plaintiff " went to a DMV office in [an] attempt to get a copy of the information relied on to revoke his license and was told that there was no DUI, but that his license would not be reinstated until he paid ...