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.

Maza v. Ware

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

February 25, 2015

EZEKEIL MAZA a/k/a Joe Harris, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY M. WARE, et al., Defendants

EZEKEIL MAZA, also known as JOE CURTIS HARRIS, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.

For NANCY M. WARE, DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISOR AGENCY, STACIA HYLTON, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, FLORIANO WHITWELL, SENIOR INSPECTOR, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendants: Andrea McBarnette, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington, DC.

For CATHY L. LANIER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, DC, Defendant: Ali Naini, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Public Interest Division, Washington, DC.

Page 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, United States District Judge.

Joe Curtis Harris, also known as Ezekiel Maza, sues Nancy M. Ware, Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia; Stacia Hylton, Director, United States Marshals Service (USMS); Floriano Whitwell, Senior Inspector, USMS (collectively, the Federal Defendants); and Cathy Lanier, Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (collectively, Defendants). Proceeding pro se, Mr. Harris complains that Defendants cannot hold him to the registration and notification requirements of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, see 42 U.S.C. § 16901, et seq., and related D.C. sex offender registration statutes.[1] Mr. Harris argues that these requirements violate his rights under the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution because the sex crimes for which he was required to register took place in the 1980s and 1990s, long before the registration laws were adopted. Federal Defendants and Chief Lanier separately move to dismiss. Mr. Harris filed an opposition, to which none of the Defendants filed a Reply. For reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Mr. Harris's Civil Case

Mr. Harris filed this civil suit under the name Ezekiel Maza (also acknowledging his name as Joe Curtis Harris) in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on February 21, 2014. Notice of Removal, Ex. A (Superior Ct. Compl.) [Dkt. 1-1] at 2. Mr. Harris complains that by requiring him to register as a sex offender, Defendants violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3) because his prior sex offense convictions occurred in 1987 and 1999, long before passage of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) and the Adam Walsh Act of 2006.[2] Id. at 7. Mr. Harris seeks $6,000,000, " protection from future harm," an injunction to restrain all Defendants from contacting him, his

Page 18

friends, or his place of employment, among others, and for " all actions involving said practices described in this complaint to be halted." Id. at 11. On June 2, 2014, the Federal Defendants and Defendant Lanier filed motions to dismiss. See Dkts. 7, 8.

B. Mr. Harris's Criminal Proceedings

On July 16, 2014, Mr. Harris was indicted in a separate criminal prosecution for failing to register, update and verify his sex offender registration (and specific residence) as required by SORNA, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). See United States v. Harris, Criminal Case No. 14-150, Indictment [Dkt. 1].

On November 20, 2014, Mr. Harris pled guilty before this Court to Count Two of an Indictment for failing to register, update, and verify his address.[3] By his signature to the Statement of Offense, and in the course of his plea colloquy, Mr. Harris agreed that the government could prove that he had failed to update and verify his registration with the D.C. ...


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.