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.

Moore v. Department of Justice

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 27, 2013

SIM B. MOORE, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, Defendant

SIM B. MOORE, JR., Plaintiff, Pro se, Baltimore, MD.

For DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Defendant: Sobia Haque, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Civil Division, Washington, DC.

OPINION

Page 31

Royce C. Lamberth, Chief United States District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (" ATF" ) moves to dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 6. Upon consideration of the motion, plaintiff Sim B. Moore, Jr.'s Opposition [9], ATF's Reply [11], the entire record herein, and the applicable law, the Court will dismiss this case.

I. BACKGROUND

Moore is an African American, former ATF special agent. He was a named plaintiff in a Title VII lawsuit culminating in a settlement agreement and forming the basis for this claim. Moore alleges the ATF violated the settlement agreement by investigating him and terminating his employment without prior approval by the Office of the Assistant Director (Inspections).

The settlement agreement provided:

Any decision to commence an investigation into the conduct of any named plaintiff or any African-American GS-1811 series agent who has filed, within the past twelve (12) months, an EEO complaint shall be reviewed and approved by the Assistant Director (Inspections).

Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A (Settlement Agreement, Section IV.C.11), at 31-32.

The settlement agreement provided that the Court's jurisdiction over the agreement and the agreement itself would expire four years from the agreement's effective date. Id. at 33. By consent of the parties, the Court's jurisdiction was extended and ultimately lapsed on July 19, 2001.

Page 32

Stewart v. O'Neill, 225 F.Supp.2d 6, 8 (D.D.C. 2002). Thereafter, the Court retained jurisdiction over just three sections of the agreement, Sections IV.C.1 (Data Collection), IV.C.2 (Analysis of Data), and IV.C.5 (Promotions Assessment System). Id. at 8-9 (citing provision of settlement agreement which extends jurisdiction over these sections). The provision that Moore ...


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.