AL EX AN DR I A JON ES,

Plaintiff,
v. J ANI CE QUI

NTANA , e t al

. , De fe nd ants
. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 08-620 ( CKK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION (Oc tober 26, 2009) Plaintiff Alexandria J ones, a f ormer e mploy ee of

the District of Columbia Offic e of Unified Communications (“OU C”), filed the above- captioned la wsuit ag ainst the District of C o l u mb i a ( “ D
. C
. ” o r

th e “ D i s tr i c t ” ) an d

J an i c e Q u i n t an a , D i r e c t o r o f th e O U C ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, with D.C., “Def

endants” ). In her or igina l Compl aint, filed on April 10, 2008, Plaintiff alleg ed reta liation in viol ation of the D.C. Whistl eblower Protection Act, D.C. Code § 1-615.51 et seq . (Count I ); reta liation in viol ation of the D.C. Workers’ Compensation statute, D.C. Code § 32-1501 et seq . (Count I I ); and de privation of her First Amendme nt Rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I I I ). SeeCompl., Docket No. [1] . On J anuar y 2, 2009, Plaintiff
ame nd e d h e r c omp la int

to a sse rt tw o a dd iti on a l c la ims : a

c la im that D e fe nd ants fa ile d to provide a rea sonable a ccommodation for her me ntal anxiety

in violation of the ADA (Count I V); and a claim that Def

endants ter

minated her

employ ment in retaliation for

filing a n EEO complaint in violation of the ADA (Count V). SeeA m. Co mp l. , D o c k e t N o . [1 9 ]. On J anuar

y 30, 2009, Def

endants filed a

[20] Motion to Dism iss Pl aintiff’s Ame nded Complaint, which the Court subsequently g rante d-in-par

t and denied- in-part. SeeCiv . A c t.2

No . 0 8- 62 0, Me m. O p. (D .D .C. Se pt. 30 , 2 00 9) . M or e sp e c if ic a lly , th e Court

he ld a s f oll ow s: (1) Wit h respe ct t o Count I , Def endants’ motion was G RANTED insofa r as Def endants a sserted that Count I must be dis missed as ag ainst Defe ndant Qu int ana , b ut w a s D EN I ED ins of ar a s D e fe nd ants ass erte d th at Co un t I mus t be dis mis se d a s a g a ins t th e Di str ic t; (2) Wit h respe ct to Count I I , Def endants’ motion was G RANTED, a nd Count IIw a s d i s m i s s e d

i ni t s e n t i r e ty; (3 ) Withre sp e c t to Count I I I , D e fe nd ants ’ m oti on wa s (a) DENI ED insofar as De fe n d an t s as s er t ed t h at Plaintiff fa ile d to suf

fi c ie ntl y a lle g e that she sp ok e out as a pr ivate c iti zen ; (b) GRANTED insofar as Def endants asser

ted that Plaintiff’s Se c ti o n 1 9 8 3 c la im a g a in s t D e f e n d an t Q u inta

n a in her of fi c ia l c a pa c ity sh ou ld b e dis mis se d a s r e dund ant; (c ) DENI ED WI TH OU T PRE JUDI CE ins of ar a s D e fe nd ants ass er ted that Def

endant Quintana

is entitled to qualified immun ity ; (D ) GR

ANTED i ns ofar as D efen dan ts so ught to dis mis s Pla int if f’ s Se c tio n 1 98 3 c la im a g a ins t th e Di str ic t; (4) Wit h respe ct to Count I V, De fe n d an t s ’ m o t i o n wa s GRANTED, and Count I V was dismissed in its entirety ; and (5) Wit h respe ct to Count V, Defe ndants’ motion was DENI ED. Acc ording ly , as the Court made clea r in its Memorandum Opinion, the followingtwo claims survived De fenda

nts’ [20] Motion to Dism iss: C ount I(D.C. Whist leblower Protection Act, D.C. Code § 1-615.51 et seq .) a s a g a ins t th e Di str ic t, a nd Count V(r e ta liatio n in violation of the ADA, 42 U .S.C. § 12203(a)), a s ag ainst the District. Id. at 2. Wit h respe ct to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim as a g ainst Defe ndant Quintana, howeve r, the Court denie d Def endants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, notingthat the3

Am e nd e d Co mpl a int

did no t in dic ate wh e the r P la int if f i nte nd e d to br ingsu it a g a ins t De fe nd ant Q uintana

in h e r i nd ivi du a l or

of fi c ia l c a pa c ity and that th e Court

wa s una ble to
c on c lud e on

the re c or d th e n b e fo re it whe the r P la int if f m e ant t o a sse rt

he r S e c tio n 1 98 3 c la im ag ainst Defe ndant Quintana in he r off icial ca pacity and/or individual ca

pacity . The Court conclude d that it was “unfa ir to Defe ndant Quintana to r equire her to a dvance a cla im of qualified immunity

without specific notice as to the exact nature of the fa ctual alleg ations ag ainst her in her

persona l capa city .” Id. at 17. The Court ther efor e held that, to the e x tent Plaintiff intended to alleg e her Section 1983 claim ag ainst Defe ndant Quintana in he r individual capac ity

as we ll as in her off

icial ca pacity , she wa s require d to amend her complaint, by

no later tha

n October 16, 2009 , to specify that she intended to sue D efe ndant Quintana in her

individual capac ity

and to alleg e fa cts sufficie nt to support her cla im that Def endant Quintana

should be held per sonally liable. The Court fur

ther he ld that, in the event Pla int if f a me nd e d h e r c omp la int

to s pe c if y that he r S e c tio n 1 98 3 c la im i s a sse rt e d a g a ins t Def endant Quintana

in her individual ca

pacity , Def

endant Quintana

would be per

mitted an opportunity

to file a re newe d motion with respect to her claim of qua lified immunit y . Id. at 17-18. On Octobe r 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed a doc ument captioned the “Second A mended Complaint,” as permitted by the Court’s Memora

ndum Opinion. SeeDoc ketNo. [ 32 ] . By minute order dated that same da y , the Court noted, howeve r, that Plaintiff’s Second A mended Complaint contains only

her a mended Sec tion 1983 Cl aim and re lated fa ctual alleg ations
a g a ins t D e fe nd ant Q uintana and do e s not include any

other fa ctual alleg ations and/or leg al
c la ims . 1 0/5 /09 Min . O rd e r. In o the r w or ds , Pl a int if f’ s Se c on d A me nd e d Co mpl a int omi ts4

any re fe re nc e to —

and the re fo re a

pp e ars to a

ba nd on — Pl a int if

f’ s c la ims un de r t

he D. C. Whis tleblower Protec tion Act, D.C. Code § 1-615.51 et seq . and for reta liation in viol ation of the AD A, 42 U. S.C. § 1 22 03 (a ), bo th o f whic h th e Court he ld s ur viv e d D e fe nd ants ’ m oti on to dismiss . I t was there fore unclea r to the Court whethe r Plaintiff, by filing the Second Amended Complaint, had intende d to abandon these rema ining c laims or whether her f ailure to include such c laims and related fa ctual alleg ations in her Second A mended Complaint was
mere ly an over sight on he r par

t. I n an ef

fort to provide Plaintiff a

n opportunity

to clarify which pre cise c laims she intended to continue to pursue in this l itigation, the Court issued a Min ute Or de r d ate d O c tob e r 5 , 2 00 9, wh ic h p ro vid e d, in r e le va nt p art , th at: [i ]f, as the Court assumes, Plaintiff intends to pr ocee d not only with her amended Section 1983 Claim but also with those claims that survived De fenda nts' motion to d ism iss ( i.e. , Counts I and V as ag ainst the District), Plaintiff must re-f ile, by no late r t ha n O c tob e r 1 6, 20 09 , a

Se c on d A me nd e d Co mpl a int that in c lud e s a ll fac ts and rema ining leg al claims at issue in a sing le document. Significa ntly , Plaintiff failed to do so by the Octobe r 16, 2009 dea dline, or, indee d, at any time there afte r. Nonethele ss, beca

use Plaintiff’s Second A mended Complaint made c lear that she intended to bringher Sec tion 1983 claim ag ainst Defe ndant Quintana in he r individual capa city , the Court, as it previously indicated it would do, per mitted Defe ndants to file a
rene wed motion with respec t to Pl aintiff’s amended Sec tion 1983 claim as ag ainst Defe ndant Quintana. See10/5/09 Min. Order. De fenda nts did so on October 22, 2009, filinga Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amende d Complaint. SeeDocke t No. [33] . Notably , g iven that Plaintiff had not attempted to re -file a Second Amende d Complaint as provided by the Court’s October 5, 2009 Minute Order , Def endants a ssumed that Plaintiff’s Second Amende dThe Court notes that Plaintiff, in addition to the status report re fer ence d above, f iled a 1 second status re port on Octobe r 24, 2009. SeeDo c ke t N o. [34]. It a pp e ars , h ow e ve r, that th is second status re port was f iled in error , as it is dated Octobe r 28, 2008, and r elates to a dispositi ve motion filed by

Def endants in June of 2008, which wa s denied without prejudice on Dec ember 29, 2008. 5 Complaint i ncluded only

her Sec tion 1983 claim ag ainst Defe ndant Quintana ( i.e., that the
rema ining c laims had bee n abandone d) and move d to dismi ss her Sec ond Amended Complaint i n its entirety

based upon the claim of qua lified immunit y . Upon re ceipt of D efe ndants’ motion, the Court, in an abundanc e of c aution, issued y et
ano the r M inute Or de r o n O c tob e r 2 3, 20 09 , o nc e a g a in a le rt ingPla int if f t o h e r f a ilure to incorpora te any additional fac ts or leg al claims in her Sec ond Amended Complaint. See 10/23/09 Min. Order. In so doing, the Court expl icitly place d Plaintiff on notice that, g iven her f ailure to indica

te to the Court her intent to proc eed w ith either Count Ior Count V of her Amended Complaint, it “shall assume that Plaintiff intends to proce ed ONLY with her amende d Section 1983 claim and that she has aba ndoned all other

rema ining c laims and fac tual alleg ations that are not included in her Sec ond Amended Complaint as attac hed at Docke t No. 32.” Id. In response , Plaintiff filed a [35] Status Report with the Court dated Octobe r 24, 20 09
. Pla int if

f’ s Status Re po rt

state s in fu ll: 1 1
. P l a i n t if

f d oe s not

intend to relitigate any

issue that was de cided by the cour t in its S eptember

30, 2009 memorandum opinion. 2. Pla int if

f d oe s not int e nd

to f ile any re sp on se to d e fe nd ants ’ m oti on to d ism iss pla int if f’ s se c on d ame nd e d c omp la int
. Id. (empha sis in original). N oticeably , Plaintiff does not attempt to corre ct the assumption made by both this C ourt and De fenda nts that she has aba

ndoned all other

claims, save f

or her6

Section 1983 claim ag ainst Defe ndant Quintana. Acc ording ly , based on Plaintiff’s e x press re prese ntations in thi s most rece nt [ 35] Status Re po rt , th e Court

c on c lud e s th at Pla int if

f i nte nd s h e r S e c on d A me nd e d Co mpl a int to include only

her Sec tion 1983 Cl aim ag ainst Defe ndant Quintana a nd that she has
a ff ir mativ e ly a ba nd on e d a ll o the r c la ims (i nc lud ingthe tw o c la ims that surv ive d D e fe nd ants ’ [20] M oti on

to D ism iss ). As de sc ri be d a bo ve , th e Court

ha s p ro vid e d Pl a int if

f — wh o is repr esente d by

counsel in this matter — multiple opportunities to re-file a Second Amende d Com pla int that in c lud e s n ot o nly

he r S e c tio n 1 98 3 c la im a g a ins t D e fe nd ant Q uintana but a lso the tw o c la ims that su

rv ive d D e fe nd ants ’ [2 0] Mo tio n to Di smi ss ( i.e. , Counts Iand V a s ag ainst the District). More over, the Court has also made a bundantly clea r that Plaintiff’s fa ilure to d o s o s ha ll b e tr e ate d a s an e xpre ss a ba nd onme nt o f s uc h c la ims . N on e the le ss, Pla int if f h a s ta ke n n o a c tio n to re -f

ile a Se c on d A me nd e d Co mpl a int that in c lud e s Co un ts I and V a s ag ainst the District nor has she otherwise indicated her intent at this ti me to pursue any claims other than he r Section 1983 cla im ag ainst Defe ndant Quintana. Plaintiff a lso now
conce des the mer its of Defe ndants’ [33] Motion to Dism iss Pl aintiff’s Sec ond Amended Complaint, which is premised on the assumption that Plainti ff intends to pursue only her S e c t i o n1 9 8 3 c l a i m . A c c o r d i n g l y, g i v e nP l a i n t i f f ’ s r e p e at e d

f a i l ur e t o i n d i c at e t o th e c o n tr ar y, the on ly re a so na ble c on c lus ion

that ma y be re a c he d is that Pla int if f h a s e xpre ssl y

c ho se n to
a ba nd on Counts Iand

V a s a lle g e d a g a ins t th e Di str ic t. In a dd iti on , th e Court

un de rs tand s Pla int if

f t o h ave c on c e de d th e me ri ts o f D e fe nd ants ’ [33] M oti on

to D ism iss . Pl a int if

f, in h e r S tatus Re po rt , e xplic itl y state s th at sh e “ do e s not intend to file any

response to defe ndants’ motion to dism iss plaintiff’s second a mendedIn light of this dec ision, the Court’s October 23, 2009 Minute O rder requiring 2 De fe nd ants to f

ile a su pp le me nta l no tic e re g ard ingc a se law r e le va nt t o th e ir qu a lif ie d immun ity claim is now moot. SeeOct. 23, 2009 Min. Orde r. 7 c omp la int .” Pl. ’s Status Re p. , D oc ke t N o. [35]. In li g ht o f t his e xpre ss r e pr e se ntatio n, it i s
rea dily appar ent that Plaintiff has conc eded the merits of De fenda nt Quintana’s qua lified immunit y claim with respe ct to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim. The Court shall ther efor e GRANT De fenda

nts’ [33] Motion to Dism iss as conce ded, and Plaintiff’ s Second Amende d Com pla int is D I SMI SSED in i ts e nti re ty
. An a pp ro pr iate Or de r a c c omp anie s th is 2 Memorandum Opinion. Date: October

26, 2009
/s/ C O LLE E N K O LLA R
- K O T E LLY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge