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.

Mpras v. District of Columbia

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

November 21, 2014

EMANUEL NIKOLAOS MPRAS, Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant

Page 266

For EMANUEL NIKOLAOS MPRAS, Plaintiff: Matthew August LeFande, LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW AUGUST LEFANDE, Arlington, VA.

For DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant: Stephanie Litos, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, DC.

Page 267

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

TANYA S. CHUTKAN, United States District Judge.

Before the Court is the District of Columbia's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 5) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Plaintiff Emanuel Nikolaos Mpras's Opposition (ECF No. 7), and the District's Reply (ECF No. 8). Upon consideration of the briefing and for the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mpras filed a four-count Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of a property interest, deprivation of a liberty interest, deprivation of equal protection under the law, and defamation per se. The first three of Mpras's counts are based on his allegation that the District wrongfully deprived him of the photographic identification referred to in subsection (d) of the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (the " LEOSA" ), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 926C. (ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶ ¶ 22; 29; 33). In his fourth count, for defamation, Mpras alleges that the District maintains false information in its official records concerning Mpras's employment, that the District has " transmitted such false information" concerning his " fitness for employment as a law enforcement officer" to third parties, and in doing so, " directly and proximately injured the Plaintiff in his profession" and " wrongfully impede[s] and prevent[s] the Plaintiff's future employment as a law enforcement officer." ( Id. ¶ ¶ 36-40).

Additionally, Mpras seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) in the form of a declaration that the District's failure to issue him the photographic identification card " and the attendant immunities of the [LEOSA]" is unlawful, and an injunction ordering the District to provide him such a card. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 41-43). Lastly, Mpras seeks monetary and punitive damages.

LEOSA provides in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification

Page 268

required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce . . . .

18 U.S.C. § 926C(a). In order to meet the identification requirements of subsection (d), retired law enforcement officers must possess:

(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer; and
(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met--
(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the ...

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.