Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fox v. District of Columbia

United States District Court, District of Columbia

February 15, 2013

Barbara FOX, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.

Page 303

Sean Robert Day, Law Office of Sean Robert Day, Greenbelt, MD, William CharlesCole Claiborne, III, Law Office of

Page 304

William Claiborne, III, Falls Church, VA, for Plaintiffs.

Bradford Collins Patrick, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMY BERMAN JACKSON, District Judge.

In this case, plaintiff Hamilton P. Fox, III challenges the District of Columbia's post and forfeit procedure through which he obtained his release from jail after a disorderly conduct arrest.[1] Sec. Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 39] ΒΆ 6. On March 30, 2012, the Court granted the District of Columbia's motion to dismiss the counts against it related to that procedure: counts four through eight of the first amended complaint. Order [Dkt. # 36]; see also Memorandum Opinion, 851 F.Supp.2d 20 (D.D.C.2012) [Dkt. # 37] (" Mem. Op." ). In that same order, the Court also granted Fox's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. That pleading added two new counts against the District, see Sec. Am. Compl., and the District has moved to dismiss those counts as well. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Sec. Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 42] (" Def.'s Mot." ). In the meantime, Fox has moved for reconsideration of the Court's original ruling under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Pl.'s Mot. for Reconsideration [Dkt. # 60] (" Pl.'s Mot." ). Since Fox has seen fit to utilize both of these briefing opportunities to reargue issues that the Court has already decided, the Court will address both motions in a single opinion.

Specifically, Fox asks the Court to revisit the following issues:

• Exhaustion of state-law remedies, see Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Sec. Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 46] (" Pl.'s Opp." ) at 20-26; Pl.'s Mot. at 5-6;
• Voluntariness of the post-and-forfeit procedure, see Pl.'s Opp. at 30-33, 37-41; Pl.'s Mot. at 6-10;
• Standing, see Pl.'s Opp. at 32-36; Pl.'s Mot. at 10-12;
• Substantive due process claims, see Pl.'s Mot. at 13-17; and
• Procedural due process claim, see Pl.'s Mot. at 17-18.

Each of these issues was presented to the Court before, considered, and rejected:

• Exhaustion of state-law remedies, see Pl.'s Opp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 24] (" Pl.'s Opp. to First. Mot. to Dismiss" ) at 36-37; see also Mem. Op., 851 F.Supp.2d at 27-29;
• Voluntariness of the post-and-forfeit procedure, see Pl.'s Opp. to First. Mot. to Dismiss at 28, 34-35, see also Mem. Op., 851 F.Supp.2d at 22-23, 31-32;
• Standing, see Pl.'s Opp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Compl. at 2-3; see also Mem. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.