A fourth a ction arising from the same set of fac ts is pending in the United States District 1 Court for the District of

Mary land. Se e Rogle r v . Le av itt , Civil Action No. 07-726 (D. Md.) . That case alleg es violations of Title VI Iof t he C ivil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S .C. § 2000e et seq . M s. Rogle r also filed, voluntar ily dismiss ed, but then appe aled, a law s u it in the District of Maryland alleg ing violations of the Priva cy Act, 5 U.S.C . § 552a. See R ogler v. HH S , Civil Action No. 07- 1676 (D. Md.). The rea fter she filed anothe r Privacy Act lawsuit with this Court. See R ogler v. HH S , Civil Action No. 08-570 ( D.D.C.). Ms. Rogler ’s Complaint consists of 34 pag es, conta ining ove r 2 0 0 al l eg ations, some of 2 which ar e broug ht on behalf of other individuals. Despite the fac t that Ms. Rogler is a lawy er, the Court has construe d her pro se Complaint libera lly in her fa vor. Se e Br own v . Dis tri c t of Colum bia , 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 ( D.C. Cir. 2008). UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) EDAR ROG LER, ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 07-2308 (RM C) ) WILLIAM BIGLOW , e t al . , De fend ant s. ) ) ) )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION T h i s ca s e i s t h e fi rs t o f t h re e fi l ed b y E d ar R o gl er , an at t o rn ey wh o i s p ro ce ed i n g pr o

se , all of which a

rise fr om the same set of

fac ts. Ms. Rogler

worke d as an associate chapla in for the 1 Un ite d St a te s D e pa

rtme nt o f H e a lthand Human Se rv ic e s a t the Natio na l I ns tit ute of He a lth . In th is

case , Ms. Rogler

alleg es that her

employ ment was terminated and that a false document concer ning her pe rfor mance was c reated in reta liation for her agr eeing to testify as a witness in an administrative proce eding b ef

o re t h e Equal Employ

ment Opportunity

Commi ssion. She sues 13 named f eder al 2 employ ees a

nd 25 unnamed Doe s in their persona l capa cit i es s eekingmoney damag es for

alleg edMs. Rogler appea rs to be attempting to state a c ause of action under Bi v e ns v . S ix Un k no wn 3 Named Agents of the Fe deral Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). -2- violations of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments t o the C onstitut ion, and of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. 3 Def endants move to dismiss. This case w ill be dismi ssed bec ause Ms. Rog ler ha s failed to state a claim upon which r elief c an be g rante d. I. LEGAL STANDARD A motion to dis miss pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6) cha lleng es the a de qu a c y

of a c omp la int

on its fa c e , te sti ngwhe ther a pla int if f h a s p ro pe rl y

state d a c la im. Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 8(a ) re quires that a c omplaint contain “a short and plain statement of the c la im s ho wi ngthat th e ple a de r is e nti tle d to r e lie f. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 8 (a ). A c omp la int mus t be sufficie nt “ to g ive a defe ndant fair notice of the claims ag ainst him.” Be ll A tl. Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 127 S. Ct . 1955, 1964 (20 0 7 ). Al though a complaint does not nee d detailed f actua l alleg ations, a pla int if f’ s o bli g a tio n to pr ov ide the g ro un ds of his e nti tle me nt to r e lie f “ re qu ir e s mo re tha n la be ls and conc lusions, and a formulaic rec itation of the eleme nts of a ca use of a ction will not do.” Id. at 1964-65 (inter

nal citations omitted). Rule 8(a) require s a “showing ” and not just a blanket a ssertion of a r ight to re lief. Id. at 1965 n.3.

A c ourt mus t tr e a t th e c omp la int ’s fa c tua l a lle g a tio ns a s tr ue , “eve n if

do ub tf ul i n fac t,” id . at 1965, and must draw al l rea sonable infe renc es in the plaintiff’s f avor. Macharia v. United States , 3 34 F .3 d 61, 64 , 67 (D .C. Cir . 200 3)

. Ev e n so, the fa c ts al le g e d “mu st b e e no ug h to raise a rig ht to relief above the speculative level,” Twom bly , 127 S. Ct. at 1965, and the court nee d

no t a c c e pt a s tr

ue inf e re nc e s uns up po rt e d b y fa c ts se t out in the c omp la int

or le g a l c on c lus ion s c a st as fa ctual alleg ations. Browning v. Clint on , 292 F.3d 23 5 , 2 4 2 (D .C. Cir. 2002). “[A] complaint-3-

ne e ds some information about the c ircumstance s gi v i n g ri se to the cla ims.” Aktieselsk abet Af 21. Nov. 2001 v. FameJeans, I nc. , 525 F.3d 8, 16 n.4 ( D.C. Cir. 2008) (empha sis in original).

II. AN AL YSI S Ms. Rog le r a lle g e s th a t th e ind ivi du a l D e fe nd ants vio late d he r F ir st, F ourt h a nd F if th Amendment rig hts by

conspiring to retaliate ag ainst her f or ag ree ing to testify

as a wi t n ess i n an

a dmi nis tr a tiv e pr oc e e din g be fo re the EE OC c on c e rn inga dif fe re nt e mpl oy e e . T itl e VI Ipr ov ide s a

reme dy for f eder al employ ees w ho are reta liated ag ainst for pa rticipating in EEOC proce eding s. See 42 U. S.C. §§ 20 00 e -3 (a ); 20 00 e -1 6; P o r te r v. Adams , 639 F.2d 273, 277- 78 (5th Cir. 1981) (§ 2000e- 16 prohibits retaliation ag ainst fede ral e mploy ees f or invoking Title VI I rig hts). I ndeed, Ms. Ro g le r h a s a T it le V I I la w s u it p e n d in g in th e U n it e d St a te s D is tr ic t Co u rt f o r th e District of Maryland. See supra note 1. That reme dy is Ms. Rogler’ s exclusive remedy

. Brown v. GSA , 425 U. S. 8 20 , 8 35 (1 97 6) . Sh e c ann ot recas t he r T itl e VI Ire ta liatio n c la ims a s c on sti tut ion a l c la ims

. Et hn ic Em plo y e es o f th e Lib ra ry

of C on g. v . B oo rst in , 751 F.2d 1405, 1414- 15, n.12 & 13 (D.C. Cir. 1985). B eca

use that is pr ecise ly what she has done here , the Court will dism iss her constitutional cl ai m s with prejudice. See id. a t 1 4 1 5 ( “ th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly d is mi s s e d

th o s e c o n s ti tuti o n al

c l a i m s t h a ts i mp l y

r e s t a t e d c l a i m s o f r a c i a l , e t h n i c o r o t

h er d i s c r i m i n a t i o nc o g n i z a

b l e u n d e r T i t l e V II,

or c la ims of

re ta liatio n f

or the inv oc a tio n o f T itl e VI Iri g hts ” ); cf. Mor r i s v. W ash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. , 7 02 F .2 d 1 03 7, 10 39 -4 0 ( D. C. C ir . 1 98 3) (f e de ra l e mpl oy e e ’s fi rs t ame ndme nt c la im for r etaliatory

discharg e prohibited by

Title VI Iwould be bar

red)

. No r c an M s. Ro gler r e c a st h e r T itl e VI Ire ta liatio n c la ims a s c on sp ir a c y c la ims redr essable unde r 42 U.S.C. § 1985. See Great Am. Fe d. Sav. &Loan Ass’n v. Novotsky , 4 42 U. S. 366, 372-78 (1979) (cla ims alleg ing a conspiracy t o v i o l at e Title VI Iare not actionable unde r-4-

§ 1 98 5)

. Thus , Ms. Rog le r’ s § 19 85 c la ims fa il fo r the same re a so ns he r c on sti tut ion a l c la ims fa il. They too will be dismi ssed with prejudice

.

The Court re cog nizes that Def endants have arg ued in the alternative t hat the Court l ac k s persona l jurisdiction over them and that ve nue in this judicial district is i mproper. Ne ve rt he le ss, be c a

us e Ms. Rog ler’s law su it is, at bo tto m, a me ri tle ss Bi v e ns suit, the Court dismiss es her

claims on the merits with prejudice

. Se e Sim pk ins v . D ist ric t of Colum bia , 108 F.3d 36 6, 36 9- 70 (D. C. Ci r. 19 97 ); Cameron v. Thornburgh , 983 F.2d 253, 257- 58 & n.5 ( D.C. Cir. 1993). To dismiss for lack of persona l jurisdiction or transfer fo r improper ve nue “w ould be inc on sis te nt w iththe duty of the low e r f

e de ra l c ourt s to sto p in su bs tanti a l B i v e n s act io ns in thei r trac ks and g et rid of them.” Simpkins , 108 F.3d at 370. III . C ON CL USI ON F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e Court wi ll g ra nt D e fe nd ant’ s Mo tio n to Di smi ss [D kt. # 11]. The Court will deny as moot Plainti ff’ s Motion to S tay or in the Alternative L eave to Amend [Dk t. # 12 4] and

Pla int if f’ s Mo tio n f

or Con tin ua nc e fo r Part ia l and Juri sd ic tio na l Di sc ov e ry [Dk t. # 126]. A memorializ ing O rder acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion

Date : Apr il 2 9, 20 09 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge