The pa pers submitted in connec tion with thi s matter include: De fenda nts’ Motion 1 to Dismiss (“Mot.”) ; Plainti ff’ s Opposition to Defenda nts’ Motion to Dism iss (“Opp.” ); and Reply to Plainti ff’ s Opposition to M otion to Dism iss (“Reply”).

UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

__________________________________________ ) J OHN DO E, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 08 -06 56 (P L F) ) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA, e t al

. , ) ) De fe nd ants . ) __________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER This matter ca

me bef ore the Court on a motion to dis miss filed by defe ndants the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Depar tment of Child & Fa

mily Service s, and the District of Columbia Depar tment of Youth Rehabilitation Services ( the “g overnme nt defe ndants”). Upon consider ation of the g overnme nt defe ndants’ motion, plaintiff’s opposition

1 there to, the g overnme nt defe ndants’ re ply and the e ntire re cord in this case , the Court by Orde r of Marc h 3 1, 20 09 (1 ) gra

nte d th e g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants ’ m oti on to d ism iss a s no n s ui j ur is the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia

De pa rtme nt o f C hil d & F amil y Se rv ic e s a

nd the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia Depa rtment of Youth Reha

bilitation S ervic es, and ( 2) denie d the re mainder of the g overnme nt defe ndants’ motion. This Memorandum Opinion and Or der e x plains the rea soning unde rlying the Marc h 31, 2009 Orde r; requir es the pa rties to re- evaluate the fe asibility of settlement in light of a re c e nt l e g isl a tiv e e na c tme nt; and dir e c ts t he pa rt ie s to su bmi t ne w b ri e fs if

se ttl e me nt f

a ils
.Mr. Doe’ s first amende d complaint improperly identified Reac h Youth Shelter, 2 rathe r than Sasha B ruce , as a pa rty defe ndant. On Nove mber 12, 2008, the Court g rante d Mr. Doe lea ve to file a

motion to amend his complaint for the purpose of substituti ng Sasha B ruce for Reac h Youth Shelter as a defe ndant. See Doe v. District of Columbia, Civi l Action No. 08-0656, Memorandum Opinion and O rder at 2 (D.D .C. Nov. 12, 2008). To date , Mr. Doe ha s failed to do so . In a ny e ve nt, ne ith e r R e a c h n or Sa sh a B ru c e ha s f

ile d a dis po sit ive mot ion

in t his matte r, so neither f igur es into this Memorandum Opinion and Orde r. 2 I . BA CKGROUND Plaintiff alleg es that in 2004 he wa s place d in a y outh shelter oper ated by Sasha Br uce Y outhwork, Inc. (“ Sasha B ruce ”), “ a non-pr ofit corpor ation operating in the District of Columbi a that contr acts with [the District of Columbia Depar tment of Youth Rehabilitation Service s] t o provide tempora ry shelter f or juveniles under

the jurisdiction of the District of Columbi a Superior Court.” Def endant Sasha

Br uce Y outhwork’s Answe r to Plaintiff’s Amende d Complaint ¶ 5. Acc ording to Mr. Doe, the g overnme nt defe ndants place d him in the shelter 2 afte r he w as cha

rg ed with assaultinga re lative. See Opp. at 2. He wa s 15 y ear s old at the time. Mr. Doe c laims that he “re mained in [the shelter] pending disposition of his [ assault] case f or approximately

seven months” without re ceivinga fa ct-findinghear ing a s contemplated by Di s t ri ct o f C o l u mb i a l aw . Fi rs tAm en d edC o mp l ai n t¶ 1 2 (“ C o mp l
. ”) ; s ee al s o i d
. ¶ 2 2 (c i t i n g 16 D. C. C ODE § 2310). He also claims that he wa s sexually assaulted by

two older c hildren while in shelter c are . See id. ¶ 26. On F ebrua ry 25, 2008, Mr. Doe f

iled suit in t he Superior Court of the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia

a g a ins t th e g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants and the y outh s he lte r i n which he w as plac ed. The case was subseque ntly remove d to this C ourt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 beca

use Mr. Doe ’s first ame nded complaint includes c laims under the United States Constit ution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. S ee D oe v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-0656, Notice of Removal at 1-2 ( D.D.C. April 15, 2008).3 Mr. Doe a sserts four c laims ag ainst the g overnme nt defe ndants. In Count I , Mr. Doe se eks dec laratory

relief . Specifica lly , he see ks (1) “ a judicial dec laration that [ the g overnme nt defe ndants’] policy of holding minor children in shelter detention for unde termined periods of time g reater than 30 da y s [wit hout providing he aring s on the cha rg es for which they
are place d in shelter ca

re] deprive d [Mr. Doe] and deprives a ll other similarly -situated minor children [of] their rig hts under the F ifth Amendment of the U .S. Const itution and laws of the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia

[– in pa rt ic ula r, 16 D. C. C ODE § 2310],” Compl . ¶ 41; and (2) “a judicia l decla ration as to the duties of [the District of Columbia Depa rtment of Youth Reha

bilitation Service s] and court social ser vices with re spect to the c are and super vision of minor children without parenta l control.” I d. ¶ 42. In Count I I , Mr. Doe se eks re lief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that he was “ deprive d of his constitutional rights and due proce ss of law” beca use he w as forc ed to re main in the y outh shelter without a hea ring for a n extended period of time a nd endure d sexual assault while there. I d. ¶ 45. In Count I I I , Mr. Doe se eks re lief under a neg lige nce the ory : that is, he argues that the g overnme nt defe ndants’ fa ilure “to prope rly train, supervise, c ontrol, direct a nd monitor their ag ents” proximately cause d the phy sical and p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n

j u r i e s h e s u f

f e r e d a tt h e y o u ths h e l t e r . Id
. ¶ ¶ 5 0
- 5 2
. F i n a l l y , i nC o un tIV (incorr ectly

numbere d as a se cond Count I I I ), Mr. Doe asser ts a common law c laim for neg lige nt infliction of emotional distress. See id. ¶¶ 53- 56.

Th e g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants have mov e d to dis mis s Mr . D oe ’s c la ims a g a ins t them. They

contend that ( 1) Mr. Doe ’s claims ag ainst the District of Columbia should be dismiss ed pursua

nt to Rul e 4(j) of

the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e bec ause Mr . Doe ha s failed to ser

ve the Ma y or of the D istrict of Columbia, and (2) Mr. D oe’s c laims ag ainst the twoThe g overnme nt defe ndants do not argue that Mr. Doe ’s servic e upon the District 3 o f C o l u mb i a

i s d e f e c t i v e i nan y o t h e r

w ay. 4 District of Columbia ag encie s should be dismiss ed bec ause those a g encie s are no n s ui j ur is . The g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants fu rt he r a rgue that ( 3) Counts Iand I Ish ou ld b e dis mis se d f

or fa ilure to state a c laim beca

use Mr. Doe was plac ed in “she lter ca re” rathe r than “ secur e dete ntion,” and the re fo re wa s n ot e nti tle d to an e xpe dit iou s f a c t- fi nd inghe ari ngun de r 1 6 D .C. C ODE § 2310 (an
argume nt e xpla ine d in

g re a te r d e ta il b e low ). F ina lly , th e g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants argue that (4) the Court should dec line to exercise supplementa l jurisdiction over Mr. Doe ’s common law claims in Counts I I Iand IV, but that even if the Court wer e to asser

t supplemental jurisdiction over those c laims, the Court should dis miss them pursuant to Rul e 12(b) (6) of the Fe dera l Rules of Civ il Pr oc e dure fo r f

a ilure to s tate a

c la im b e c a

us e the g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants c ann ot b e he ld liable for the acts or omissions of an indepe ndent contra ctor like the youth shelter in which Mr. Doe wa s place d. See Mot. at 1.
I I . DI SCUS SI ON A. Se rv ic e on theDi

str ic t of Colum bia On J uly 20, 2008, Mr. Doe f

iled proof of

service upon the Mayor of the D istrict of Columbi a, includingan af fidavit by the proc ess serve r stating that service had bee n eff ecte d upon “Ms. Tabatha B raxton.” Ms. Brax ton is one of the individuals desig nated to re ceive service of proce ss on behalf of

the Mayor of the D istrict of Columbia. See Mot. at 6. Thus, as it appea rs that Mr . D oe ha s p ro pe rl y se rv e d th e May or

– a nd a s th e g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants have fa ile d to argue other

wise since Mr . Doe f

iled his proof of se rvice – the Court declines to dismiss Mr. Doe’ s claims ag ainst the District of Columbia for lac k of prope r ser vice. 35 B. No n Su i Jur is Agenc ies As noted above , Mr. Doe ha s asserte d claims ag ainst two ag encie s of the District of Columbia gove rnment: the District of Columbia Depa rtment of Child & F amily Service s and the District of Columbia Depa rtment of Youth Reha

bilitation S ervic es. Ac cordingto the g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants , M r. Do e ’s c la ims a g a ins t th e se tw o a g e nc ie s mu st b e dis mis se d b e c a us e they are no n s ui j ur is – that is, “not suable as se parate entities.” Mot. at 7 (c iting seve ral c ases explaining that ag encie s of the District of Columbia g overnme nt are no n s ui j ur is a bs e nt s pe c if

ic statutory provisions to the contrar

y ). Mr. Doe rig htly

conce des this point. S ee O pp. at 4. The Court the re fo re dis mis se s th e tw o a g e nc ie s a s d e fe nd ants . C. Other Issues Counts Ia

nd I I of Mr . D oe ’s fi rs t ame nd e d c omp la int are pr e dic a te d o n th e c la im that the District of Columbia acte d in an unlawf ul manner by

keepingMr. Doe in a

y outh shelter for a n extended period of time without a f act- finding hear ing. I

n support of this claim, Mr. Doe po int s to 16 D. C. C ODE § 2310, entitled “Criteria for de taining c hildren.” A t the time Mr. Doe fi le d s uit , Se c tio n 2 31 0 p ro vid e d, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: (a) A child shall not be plac ed in detention prior to a f actf inding hear ing or

a dispositional hearingunless he is alleg ed to be delinquent or in nee d of super vision and unless it appear s from available information that detention is requir ed [to protect others or the child, or to sec ure the child’s pre sence at the next hearing .] * * * (b) A c hild shall not be placed in shelter care prior to a f actf inding he ari ngor

a dis po sit ion a l he ari ngun le ss i t a pp e ars fr om a

va ila ble inf or matio n th a t sh e lte r c are is r e qu ir e d [to pr ote c t th e c hil d, or to ensure that the child re ceive s adequate supervision and c are .]6 * * * (e) Fa ct finding hear ings f or childre n place d in securedetention shall be held within the time limit s provided in this subsection. (1) Except as pr ovided in this subsection, wheneve r a c hild has been pla ced in securedetention prior to a f act f inding he aring pursuant to §§ 16-2310 throug h 16-2313, the fa ct finding hear ing set forth in § 16-2316 sha ll commence not late r than 30 da y s from the date at which the Division authorized the child to be deta ined pursuant to § 16-2312, unless the c hild is charg ed with murder , assault with intent to kill , first deg ree sexual abuse, burg lary in the first deg ree , or robbe ry

while ar med, in which ca se the fa ct finding hear ing sha ll commence not late r than 45 da y s from the date at which the Division authorized the child to be se cure ly detained. * * * (4 ) U po n mo tio n b y

or on be ha lf of the c hil d, a

c hil d in se c ur e detention shall be re lease d from custody if the fa ct finding hear ing is n ot c omm e nc e d w ith in t he tim e pe ri od

se t f or th i n th is subsection. 16 D. C. C ODE § 2310 (2008) ( emphasis adde d).

The g overnme nt defe ndants argue that Counts Iand I Imust be dismis sed for fa i l u re t o s t at e acl ai mb ec au s e S ec t i o n2 3 1 0 (e ) gu ar an t ee s an ex p ed i t i o u s h ea ri n g on ly to children pla ced in se cure detention, not to children plac ed in shelter c are . More spe cifica lly , the g overnme nt defe ndants argue that Mr. Doe ’s

proce dural due proce ss claims cannot survive unless this Court de te rm ine s th a t th e 30 -d ay he ari ngpr ov isi on

of § 1 6- 23 10 c re a te s a c on sti tut ion a lly

pr ote c ta ble lif e , li be rt y or pr op e rt y int e re st a pp lic a ble to c hil dr e n p la c e d in

sh e lte r c are . H ow e ve r, the pla in text of § 16-2310( e)( 1) cle arly reve als that its 30-day

limit ation on ly a pp lie s to c hil dr e n p la c e d in se c ur e de te nti on

– n ot t ho se place d in shelter ca

re. Mot. at 10. See also Reply at 3 (a rguing that Mr. Doe “ is not among the class of pe rsons7

pr ote c te d b y ” Se c tio n 2 31 0( e )) . A lte rn a tiv e ly , th e g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants argue that e ve n if Se c tio n 2 31 0 d oe s gua

ra nte e an e xpe dit iou s h e ari ngto c hil dr e n p la c e d in sh e lte r c are , Co un ts I and I Istill must be dismis sed bec ause Sec tion 2310(e)( 4) provides the “sole re medy” for children denied a n expeditious hear ing. Mot. at 10. Mr. Doe r esponds that Section 2310 provides a n adequate basis for Counts I and I Ibeca

use his place ment in the y outh shelter amounted to a “sec ure de tention” within the meaningof Section 2310(e ). See O pp. at 6.

Oddly , neither pa

rty has moved to update or supplement their pa pers in lig ht of the Juve nil e Spe e dy

Tr ia l E qu ity

Con g re ssi on a l Re vie w E me rg e nc y Ac t of 20 09 , s e e D. C. A CT 18-7 (2009) (the “ 2009 Act”) , a piec e of e merg ency leg islation passed by

the District of Columbi a Council on J anuar y 6, 2009 and sig ned into law by the Mayor on January

29, 2009. The 2009 Ac t amends Section 2310 to make c lear that a child plac ed in “she lter ca re,” like a child place d in “sec ure de tention,” is entitled to an expeditious hearing . For example, the 2009 Ac t ame nd s Se c tio n 2 31 0( e ) a s f oll ow s: “ Th e le a d- in t e xt is ame nd e d b y str iki ngthe phra se ‘plac ed in sec ure de tention’ and inser ting the phr ase ‘ order ed into secur e dete ntion or ordered into s he lte r c ar e ’ in its place.” I d. (empha sis added). The 2009 Act also a dds a newsection, Se c tio n 2 31 0( e )( 1) (C ), wh ic h p ro vid e s:

whene ver a

child has bee n order ed into shelter care befor e a fac tfinding he aringpursuant to §§ 16-2310 throug h 16-2313, the fac tfinding he aringset forth in § 16-2316 sha ll commence not late r than 45 day s from the date at which the Family Court ordere d the child to be place d in shelter ca re pur suant to § 16-2312. I d. (empha sis added). A lso potentially rele vant to this case is newSection 2310(f) , which provides that “[n]o provision [ of Section 2310] shall be interpre ted as a bar to a ny claim of de nial of spee dy trial as re quired by

the Six th Amendment of the United States Consti tution.” I d.8 I t is dif fi c ult to i ma g ine that th e 20 09 Ac t do e s n ot s ub sta nti a lly a lte r – or a t le a st inform – the par

ties’ ar g uments with respec t to Count s Iand I I . The Court there fore conclude s that it wo uld be unwi se to a dd

re ss t ho se argume nts wi tho ut f ir st a llo wi ngthe pa

rt ie s to up date
and su pp le me nt t

he ir pa pe rs . N or wi ll the Court

a dd re ss t he pa rt ie s’ argume nts wi th r e sp e c t to Counts I I Iand

I V at th is t ime . It is e nti re ly po ssi ble that th e pa

rt ie s’ argume nts wi th r e sp e c t to those counts might be aff ecte d by the 2009 Act a s well and mig ht influence this Court’s decision
a s to wh e the r t o e xer c ise su pp le me nta l juri sd ic tio n. In a ny e ve nt, it w ou ld b e mor e e ff ic ie nt t o resolve a ll of the parties’ substantive disputes at the same time. Thus, the Court will (1) de ny without prejudice the rema inder of the g overnme nt defe ndants’ motion to dism iss, and (2) or der the pa rt ie s to su bmi t ne w b ri e fs that in c lud e a dis c us sio n o f t

he 20 09 Ac t and

its imp or t f or thi s
case . The Court will also order the par ties to re-e valuate the fea sibili ty of settlement in light of the 2009 Act.
I I I . CONCL USI ON

For the re asons stated a

bove, on Mar ch 31, 2009 the Court issued an O rder g rantingin part and de nying in pa rt the g overnme nt defe ndants’ motion to dism iss. Consi stent with that Order , it is hereby

ORDERED that the District of Columbia Depa rtment of Child & F amily Service s and the District of

Columbi a De partment of Y outh Rehabilitation S ervic es – but not the District of Col umb ia

– a re dis mis se d a s d e fe nd ants in t his matte r; it i s FURTHE R ORDERED that on or bef ore Ma y 8, 2009, the par

ties shall meet and
c on fe r t o r e -e va luate the fe a sib ili ty of se ttl e me nt i n li g ht o f t

he 20 09 Ac t; i t is9 FURTHE R ORDERED that, if the par ties do not settle this m atter, the g overnme nt defe ndants shall file a ne w dispositive moti on on or bef ore Ma y 22, 2009. That new dis po sit ive mot ion

mus t di sc us s th e imp or

t f or thi s c a se of

the 20 09 Ac t; i t is F UR TH ER O RD ERE D that th e pla int if f s ha ll o pp os e the g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants ’
ne w d isp os iti ve mot ion

on or be fo re Ma

y 29 , 2 00 9; a

nd it i s F UR TH ER O RD ERE D that th e g ov e rnme nt d e fe nd ants sh a ll f ile a re ply in support of their ne w dispositive moti on on or bef ore June 5, 2009. SO ORDERED.

/s/_______________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge DATE: Apr il 21, 2009