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.

Lewis v. District of Columbia Police Department

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 20, 2017

RADCLIFFE BANCROFT LEWIS, Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          RICHARD J. LEON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 14] filed on behalf of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint [ECF No. 3, at 29-34]. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants both motions.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs claims arise from his arrest in the District of Columbia, the filing of a misdemeanor criminal charge against him in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, representation by court-appointed counsel, and his detention by order of the Superior Court while he underwent forensic screening. It appears that plaintiff ultimately was found competent to stand trial, and the criminal charges were dismissed. Plaintiff now purports to bring false arrest, defamation and malicious prosecution claims against the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia ("U.S. Attorney") and the District of Columbia Public Defender Service ("PDS").

         Plaintiff makes two "Demands" against the U.S. Attorney:

3a UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA . . . maliciously prosecuted the warrantless arrest by gambling that [plaintiff] would be found incompetent, and when he was found competent they had no veritable case to advance upon demand, thereby placing [plaintiff] at substantial risk of being unwarrantably deemed a convict. Plaintiff demands seven million dollars, which is U.S. $7, 000, 000.00.
3b UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA also received the services of, and relied upon the clandestine expertise of one of their own, in CRAIG N. MOORE who infiltrated the criminal defense establishment of the Judicial System to subject [plaintiff] to incarceration in mental institutions in retaliation for challenging the jurisdiction of the criminal court. Plaintiff demands seven million dollars, which is U.S. $7, 000, 000.00.

         Compl. at 6 (emphasis in original). Similarly, the Complaint includes two "Demands" against PDS:

8a DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE advanced assertions to the several courts that it is able to affirm to the public that [plaintiff] is in fact the person rightfully charged with a crime, even though in a previous dispute[], this same defendant advanced to the courts that they are not able to affirm to the public that [plaintiff] is in fact the person . . . that it trained to be a criminal defense investigator . . . sufficient to certify [plaintiff] so that he obtains access to commerce by providing litigation support to attorneys and members of the public. Those two assertions by this one defendant cannot be reconciled one to the other. Plaintiff demands fourteen million dollars, which is U.S. $14, 000, 000.
8b DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE certified a career prosecutor holding high office in the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE to be a lowly public defender where he was able to interpose and become a clandestine prosecutor accusing [plaintiff] of being mentally incompetent even while he shielded his identity as the accuser, and pretended to be a defense counsel, thereby exercising overt influence over all parts of a criminal proceeding[.] This is malicious prosecution and it is egregious .... Plaintiff demands fourteen million dollars, which is U.S. $14, 000, 000[, ] against the interests jointly of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE, and CRAIG N[.] MOORE.

Id. at 7-8 (emphasis in original).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(1)

         "Given that [p]laintiff seeks money damages against the United States Attorney, and his claims appear to sound in tort (false arrest and malicious prosecution), " the U.S. Attorney concludes that plaintiff "invoke[s] the Federal Tort Claims Act[.]" Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 14 ("Def.'s Mem.") at 3. The U.S. Attorney moves to dismiss plaintiffs first "demand" against him for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Id. at 3-4; Def. U.S. ...


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.