United States District Court, D. Columbia.
April 28, 2015
NATHANIEL COUSART, Plaintiff,
METRO TRANSIT POLICE CHIEF, Defendant
NATHANIEL COUSART, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.
For METRO TRANSIT POLICE CHIEF, Defendant: Janice Lynn Cole, LEAD ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Washington, DC.
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Nathaniel Cousart alleges that a transit police officer arrested him in July 2010 for selling cigarettes without a license, but that the subsequent criminal case filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia was dismissed without prosecution. In this pro se civil action, Cousart seeks the return of his personal property described as " $300," as well as " the cost of [his] cigarettes (3) or (4) pack of Newport" and litigation costs. Compl. at 1--2.
The sole defendant, Metro Transit Police Chief, moves to dismiss on the alternative grounds that the Police Chief is " a title" incapable of being sued or that the Police Chief is immune from suit. Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 8. In addition, defendant contends that the claim " sounding in negligence" is barred by the District of Columbia's three-year statute of limitations. Def.'s Mem. of P. & A. at 1. Although plaintiff was informed about the consequences of filing an improper response to defendant's motion, see Order, Dec. 12, 2014, he has not addressed any of defendant's arguments for dismissal in the document construed as his opposition, ECF No. 10. As explained in the Court's prior
order, the Court may " treat as conceded any unopposed arguments defendant has advanced in support of the motion to dismiss." Order, Dec. 12, 2014. Accordingly, because Cousart has not responded to the Police Chief's reasons to dismiss the case, the Court will treat these contentions as conceded and dismiss this case.
All hope is not lost for Cousart, however. Under D.C. Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), he can move in the Superior Court for the return of property seized as part of a criminal action. The D.C. Superior Court also has jurisdiction to hear a civil action for the return of property seized in a case that was " disposed of by nolle prosequi." Alleyne v. United States, 455 A.2d 887, 888--89 (D.C. 1983).
For the forgoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant Metro Transit Police Chief's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.
This is a final appealable Order.