Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07148/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07148-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-7148 September Term, 2015

1:13-cv-00762-KBJ

Filed On: August 5, 2016

Joseph W. Lattisaw, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

District of Columbia, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Rogers, Kavanaugh, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed July 28, 2015

and November 4, 2015 be affirmed. Appellant raises no arguments on appeal

challenging the district court’s conclusion that the District of Columbia was the only

proper defendant for appellant’s claims. See U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp.,

380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (argument not made on appeal is deemed waived).

With respect to appellant’s claims of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983, the

district court correctly concluded that these claims were, on their face, conclusively

time-barred. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996). With

respect to the claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 & 1986, appellant failed to allege any act

undertaken in furtherance of a conspiracy or any underlying class-based invidiously

discriminatory animus for the alleged conspiracy. See Atherton v. D.C. Office of the

Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 688 (D.C. Cir. 2009). And, “because he did not state a claim

under § 1985(3), there is no basis for relief under § 1986.” Rodriguez v. Editor in Chief,

285 Fed. Appx. 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s

claims under District Columbia law, see Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,

USCA Case #15-7148 Document #1628734 Filed: 08/05/2016 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-7148 September Term, 2015

350 n.7 (1988), and denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration or for leave to

amend his complaint, see Firestone, 76 F.3d at 1208. 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

2

USCA Case #15-7148 Document #1628734 Filed: 08/05/2016 Page 2 of 2