As a p ar t y p ro ce ed i n g in f

or ma pa up e ris , Ms. Edwards is re ly ing on t h e co u rt office rs to eff ect 1 proper service of proc ess. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). There fore , the C ourt will not penalize her by g rantingDef

endant’ s Rule 12(b)(5) motion to di smiss.

UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

__________________________________________) ER SAL IN E ED WA RD S, ) ) P la in t if f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-167 (RM C ) ) ODIE WASHI NG TON e t al . , )

) De fend ant s. ) __________________________________________) M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION I n this civil action filed p r o s e , pla int if f E rs a lin e Ed

wa rd s su e s f or $1 mil lio n in monetary damag es, cla iming that the de fend a nts violated the Constitution and fede ral lawin refusing to pay her me dical bills for an injury she sustained while qua lifying f or a job wi t h t h e District of Columbi a De partment of Corr ections (“ DCDC”). She sues DCDC Direc tor Odie Washing ton and Unknown Membe rs of t h e D. C. Depar tment of Correc tions, “[i ]ndi vidually and in their off

icial capa city [.] ” Compl. at 1. Def endant Odie Washington moves in his officia l capa city to dismi ss the complaint under Rule 12( b)(5) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce d u re for insuff icient servic e of p r o c e s s an d

Ru le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) f

o r f a il u r e to s tate a

c la im u p o nw h ic hr e li e f

c anb e g r an te d

[D kt. # 1 0 ]. Havingrevie wed the c omplaint in li g ht of Def endant’s motion and Ms. Edwards’s opposition [ Dkt. # 14], t he Court finds that t he complaint fails t o state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g ra nte d. I t the re fo re wi ll g ra

nt Mr
. Was hin g ton ’s mot ion to dis mis s un de r Rul e 12 (b )( 6) and wi ll d i s m i s s t h e c o mp l a i n ti ni t s e n t i r e t y. 1-2- I. BACKG ROUND Ms. E dwar ds alleg es the following
. I n 2007, she “w as ca lled to beg in qualification tr a ini ng [to be c ome ] a [DCD C] c or re c tio na l of

fi c e r. ” Com

pl. a t 2. She sig ne d, a mon g oth e r p a pe rs , a docume nt entitled “I

NFO RMED CONSENT: L I AB I L I TY REL EASE FORM.” Id . (ca pitaliz ation in orig inal). In Aug ust 2007, “duringher tra ining a nd qualification” to become a DCDC corre ctional office r, Ms. Edwar ds was “a ssigne d to run down a f light of s t ai rs i n o n e of the old D.C. Gene ral Hospital Building s. Whi le running
. . . [she] [l ost] her balanc e and grabbe d the ra iling on the side of the ste ps .” Com

pl. a t 2 ¶ 4. B e c a us e the ra ili ngwa s w e t, M s. Ed wa rd s “ wa s una

ble to s us ta in her g rip” a

nd fell down the step. She “ was in excruciating pa in” and c ould not ge t up. Id
. The D.C. F ire De partment Resc ue Squad w as ca lled and tra nsported Ms. Edwa

rds to Greater Southeast Community Hospital where she wa s told following an x-ray “that both bones in her leg were broken.” They g ave [Ms. Edwar ds] s ome medication, strapped her leg [,] g ave he r some crutc hes[,] told her to make a n appointment for a

doctor in four

or five da y s [and] then re lease d [her].” Id . ¶ 7. Th e fo l l o wi n g d ay , when the pa in had not subsided, Ms. Edwards’ s father and brother took he r to th e emer g ency room at Prince G eorg e’s Community Hospital but, beca

use the
e me rg e nc y

ro om w a s “ se ve re ly

ov e rc ro wd e d, ” the y

le ft and we nt t o G e or g e town U ni versi ty Hospital. Id . ¶

10 . T he do cto rs at Geo rge town p e rf or me d a n o pe ratio n, “ the re by

putti ng[Ms. Edwar ds’s] broke n bones back toge ther[,] ” and re lease d her. Id . ¶ 11. Ms. Edwar ds “later rec eived
a bil l f ro m th e D. C. f

ir e and EM S De pa

rtme nt [f or ] $26 8. 00
. . . a

bil l f ro m th e Gr e a te r S ou the a st Communi ty

Hospital for $315.00 and $1405.00 [and] a bill fr om G eorg etown Univer sity Hospital f o r $ 3 7 , 3 1 0 .00. Id
. ¶ 1 2
. She “soug ht the defe ndants and their a g ents to pay her hospital and
emer g ency

Ambulance bills,” but they ref used to do so. Id . ¶ 13. Ms. Ed wa rd s f ile d th is laws uit

in t he Di str ic t of

Mary land , w hic h tr ans fe rr e d th e c a se-3-

he re by Or de r o f N ov e mbe r 2 0, 20 08 . Sh e a sse rt s th a t th e de fe nd ants de pr ive d h e r o f d ue pr oc e ss and equa l protection of the la ws and violated the Occ upational Safe ty and He alth Act (“ OSHA”) , 29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq . Ms. Edwards a lso invokes the C o u rt ’s d i v ersity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. II. AN AL YSI S

At the pleadingstag e, a c omplaint may be dismissed for fa ilure to state a c laim upon
a de te rm inatio n th a t the pla int if f c ann ot e sta

bli sh“ any

se t of fa c ts c on sis te nt w iththe a lle g a tio ns in the complaint” to suppor

t the alleg ed violation. Be ll A tla nti c Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct . 1955, 1969 (2007) (ci t ations omitt ed). “ A pleadingthat [m ere ly ] offers ‘la bels and
c o n c lu s io n s ’ [] ‘ a

f o r mu la ic r e c it a ti o no f

th e e le me n ts o f

a c a u s e o f a c ti o n ’ [o r ] ‘ n a k e d

a s s e rti o n [s ]’ devoid of ‘fur

ther fac tual enhanc ement’” cannot survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to di smiss. As hc ro ft v. Iqbal , 1 2 9 S
. C t
. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Twom bly ). In ruling on a m o t i o n to dismi ss, the Court ne ed not a cce pt le g al conclusions cast as fac tual alleg ations, W arre n v . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 353 F.3d 36, 40 ( D.C. Cir. 2004), or “infe renc es dra wn by [t he plaintiff] if such infer ence s are unsupported by

the fa cts set out in the complaint,” Kow al v . MC I Com mu nic ati on s Co rp . , 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Ms. Edwards c laims that Defe nd an t s d ep ri ved her “of a safe and hea lthy

[work] environment” by

“know i n gl y , i n t en t i o n al l y an d wi t hm al i ci o u s i n t en t ” f

ai l i n g t o “a d eq u at el y

s ecur [e] the ra ili nga g a ins t mo ist e r [s ic ]” and th at th ey , with the same int e nt, de pr ive d h e r o f “ jus t compensation, due proce ss and equa l pr otection of the laws by failing to pa y her medical bills, and compensating he r for labor and injury for being hurt on their job and pre mises.” Compl. at 3 ¶ 4. She fu rt he r c la ims c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio ns ba se d o n De fe nd ants ’ “ tr a ini ng . . . in a shutd ow n p os sib le [si c] condemned building and fa iling to insure he r for potential injuries” and f

aults the District for-4-

“not compelling any other law enfor ceme nt ag ency with the Gover

nment to sign the same ag ree ment that plaintiff was c ompelled to sign.” Id . at 4 ¶ ¶ 5 -6 . M s. Ed

wa rd s’ s f a c ts d o n ot i de nti fy

any ri g hts
secur ed by the C onstitut ion, and the OSHA doe s not create a pr ivate ca use of a ction., Am. Fed’n of Go v ’t Em plo y e es, AF L- CI O v . R um sfe ld , 321 F.3d 139, 143- 44 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing cases). The complaint there fore fails t o provide a basis for this Court’s orig inal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Be cause Ms. E dwar ds has proper ly invoked this Court’s diversity jurisdiction – the pa rt ie s are of div e rs e c iti zen sh ip an d the dama g e s sought exc e e d $75 ,0 00 – the Court wi ll a dd re ss
w h a ta tb e s ti s a c l a i m o f n e g l i g e n c e a g a i n s t t h e D i s t r i c tf o r f a i l i n g t o m a i n t a i na

dr y t r a i n i n g f

a c i l i t y. The c laim is quickly

resolved be cause Ms. Edwards r elea sed the District f ro m all liabilit y

arising from her “par ticipation in the phy sical fitness examination” when she signe d, in the prese nce of two witnesses, the liability

rele ase form. Pl.’s Af

fidavit Mot. in Opp’n to De f.’s Mot. to Dismiss and or Mot. for Summ. J . [Dkt. # 14] , Ex . A (Informed Consent: L iability Release For

m). The Distric t o f C olumbia rec og nizes “prospec tive liability waiver s for c laims of neg lige nt conduct” a s l o n g as the wa iver is re asonably unambig uous and cle ar. W right v. Sony Pictures Entm't, Inc ., 394 F. Supp.2d 27, 32-34 (D.D.C. 2005) (B ates, J .). B y signingthe sing lepag e, two-pa

rag raph c onsent form prominently captioned “I

NFO RMED CONSENT: L I AB I L I TY R E L E AS E FO R M , ” M s . E dwa rd s ac kn o wl ed gedan d “a gre e[ d ] t o ac ce p t ” t h at s h e w o u l d u n d er go
a phy sical fitness examination [] intended to te st overall phy sical ability . . . [t hat] there are ri sk s to my

ph y sic a l he a lthand

we ll- be inginh e re nt i n th e ph y sic a l f itn e ss e xami natio n [th a t I ] vol un tari ly and kn ow ing ly

a g re e to a c c e pt
. . . [an d that I ] re le a se and for ever

discharg e the DCDC, the District of Columbi a . . . [from liability ] by rea son of my

participation in the phy sical fitne s s ex amination which is part of the application proc ess for e mploy ment with the DCDC.-5-

Pl.’s Ex . A. This lang uag e is similar t o t hat consider ed in W right , wher e, in par ag raph 31 of an eig ht-pag e, sing le-spac ed Contestant Relea se F orm, the plaintiff “ ag ree [d] ” that he w ould not bring or be a

party to any leg al action or claim ag ainst the re lease d parties, ba sed upon or ar ising out of my participation on the prog ram or in a ny way related to the p r o g r am . . . o nan y

le g a l t h e o r y ( in c lu d in g , b u t n o t l im it e d to , p e r s o n a l i n

ju r y ) [. ] W right , 394 F. Supp.2d at 30 (pa renthesis in original). Judge Bates, in dismis sing Mr . Wright’s neg lige nce c laim, found that the for eg oing la ng uag e wa s “unambiguous and cle ar so that plaintiff
wo uld un de rs tand

he wa s w a ivi nghis ri g ht t o b ri nga c la im f or pe rs on a l inj ur ie s su ff

e re d a s a re su lt of his participation as a conte stant on Wheel of For tune.” Id . at 34 . T he same ho ld s tr ue for Ms
. Edwar ds and her

participation in the District’s phy sical fitness examination.

III . C ON CL USI ON F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e Court g ra nts De fe nd ant’ s Ru le 12 (b )( 6) mot ion to dismiss
. A s epar ate Order dismi ssing the complaint in its entirety acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date : Oc tob e r 1 4, 20 09 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge