UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OFCO LU M BIA TROY J ENKI

NS, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 08-0057 (RMU) : v. : Document Nos.: 5, 6, 8

: NAVYMA RI

NECO RPS : CO URT O F CRIMI

NA LAPP EA L S, : : De fe nd ant. :

M EM OR

AN DU MOP IN ION G RANT I NG T HE D E F E NDANT ’ S M OT I ON T O D I S M I S S F OR F AI L URE T O S T AT E A C L AI M UP ON W HI CH REL IEF C AN B E G R A N TED ; D EN Y ING A S M OO T THE D E F E NDANT ’ S M OT I ON I N T HE A L T E RNAT I VE F OR A M OR E D EF I N I TE S T AT E M E NT ; D EN Y ING A S M OO T THE D E F E NDANT ’ S M OT I ON T O D I S M I S S OR , I N THE A L T E RNAT I VE , F OR S UM M ARY J UDGMENT This matter is befor e the c ourt on the def endant’ s motion t o dismiss for f ailure to state a claim upon which r elief c an be grante d or in the alter native for a more definite stateme nt, filed on April 16, 2008, and the de fenda nt’s motion to di smiss or in the alternative f or summary judgme nt, filed on May

30, 2008. The plaintiff, a former Sailor in the United States Navy , filed a complaint ag ainst the defe ndant, the Navy Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appe als, on J anuar y 11, 2008. See Com

pl. In h is c omp la int , th e pla int if f a lle g e s th at hewa s wro ng fu lly convicted during a

court-ma rtial proce edingof ra

pe, for cible sodomy

and indec ent ac ts and reque sts a jury

trial, bac k pay

and allowa

nces a nd $250 milli on in damag es. Se eid . at 1-9. On April 16, 2008, the de fenda nt responded by

filing a motion to di smiss, or in the alternative, for a

more de finite statement. See Def .’s Mot. to Dismis s or in the Alternative for a Mo reDe fi nit e State me nt. Th e de fe nd ant a rgue s th at th e c ourt

sh ou ld dism iss thi s a c tio n b e c a us e the plaintiff has not a lleg ed that he w as succ essful in overtur ning his c onviction, id. at 2- 3; t his court lac ks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s c laims, id . at 3-4; the c ourt-mar tialT h e p l ai n t i ff’s res p on se w as d ock et ed on D ecem b er 2, 2 0 0 8 , b u t t h e d at e st am p on t h e res p on se 1 i ndi c a t e s t ha t t he C l e r k o f t he C o ur t r e c e i v e d i t o n N o v e m be r 20, 2008. T h e ori gin al m em oran d u m ord er, i ssu ed D ecem b er 4, 2 0 0 8 , d i rect ed t h e p l ai n t i ff t o sh ow cau se 2 o n o r be f

o r e J a nua r y 4, 2009. M e m . O r de r ( D e c . 4, 2008)

. Bec a us e J a nua r y 4, 2009 f e l l o n a S u n d ay, th e c o u rt issu ed a m in u te ord er e stab li sh in g an am en d ed d ea d li n e o f Ja n u ary 5 , 2 0 0 9

. M in u te O rd er (D ec . 4 , 2 0 0 8 ).

2 proce eding s are immune from suit, id. at 4-7; the plaintiff ha s failed to esta blish that the defe ndant was a

state off icial ac ting unde r color of state law, id. at 7- 8; a

nd thepla int if

f f a ile d to exhaust his admini strative re medies, id. at 8-9. Alter natively , the def

endant a sks that the court order the plaintiff to make a

more de finite statement of his cla ims to provide fair notice to the defe ndant. Id. at 9-11. In response , the plaintiff filed a “notice”that appea

rs to be a doc ument used in his appea l be fo retheCourt

of Ap pe a ls f

or theAr me d Se rv ic e s, wh ic h d id n ot a dd re ss t he le g a l argume nts raised by the def endant in the instant motion. Notice (Apr . 28, 2008). This court then issued a minute order notify

ing the plaintiff of his obligation to respond to the defe ndant’s motion on or befor e Nove mber 20, 2008. Minute Or der (Nov. 6, 2008). In the minute order , the cour t inf or me d th e pla int if

f t hat f a ilureto r e sp on d w ith in t he sp e c if ie d ti me wo uld

be e qu iva le nt t o

conce ding the defe ndant’s motion, which could re sult in di smissal. Id. The plaintiff r esponded by stating that he “did not re spond to the motion because thedefe nse did exactly what [he] had anticipated.”Pl.’s Response (Dec . 2, 2008). Although the plaintiff stated that he had “no 1 int e nti on of c on c e din g ,” he fa ile d to re sp on d to thele g a l argume nts ra ise d b y thede fe nd ant i n it s motion. Id . On Dec ember 4, 2008, the cour

t issued a memora

ndum order r equiringthe plaintiff to respond to the substantive leg al arguments raised by the def endant’ s motion on or before J anuar y 5, 2009, or the c laims would be dismissed. Mem. Orde r (De c. 4, 2008). The 2A s a re su lt, th e c o u rt d e n ie s a s m o o t th e d e fe n d a n t’ s m o tio n in th e a lte rn a tiv e fo r a m o re d e fin ite 3 st at em ent and den i es as m oot t h e def end ant ’s m ot i on t o dis m i ss or , i n t h e a l t er n at i ve, f or su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. 3 me mor and

um o rd e r s umm ari zed

theargume nts to whic h th e c ourt dir e c te d th e pla int if

f t o respond. Id . The plaintiff subse quently filed a “ notice of suppleme ntal authority” on January 5, 2009, which appe ars to be a nother doc ument used in his appea l beforethe Court of Appe als for the Arme d For ces a

nd does not addre ss the leg al arguments raised in the de fenda nt’s motion. Notice ( J an. 5, 2009). The plaintiff ha s failed to addr ess any of the substantive leg al arguments raised in the defe ndant’s motion, despite the cour t’s admonition on two separate occ asions that such fa ilure may result in his case be ing dismissed. Ther efor e, the c ourt treats the defe ndant’s arguments as

conce ded. See TwelveJohn Doe s v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 577 ( D.C. Cir. 1997) (statingthat if a pa

rty does not respond to a

motion, the court may

treat the motion as conce ded). Ac c or din g ly , th e c ourt

gra nts thede fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dis mis s. An Orde r c on sis te nt w iththi s 3 Memorandum Opinion is separ ately and conte mporane ously

issued this 12th day

of Mar ch, 2009.

RI CARDO M. URBI NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJu d ge