UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DAVID L. TURNER, JR., Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 14-261 (JEB)
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff David L. Turner, Jr., has filed no fewer than five pro se Complaints in the District of Columbia Superior Court and U.S. Di strict Court in the last few months. The ones filed in Superior Court have now been removed here. See ECF No. 1 (Notice of Removal), Exh. A (Superior Court Complaint, Dec. 31, 2013); Turner v. U.S. Parole Commission, No. 14-89, ECF No. 1 (Notice of Removal), Exh. A (Superi or Court Complaint, Nov. 25, 2013); Turner v. Corrections Corp. of America, No. 14-381, ECF No. 1 (Notice of Removal), Exh. A (Superior Court Complaint, Feb. 3, 2014); Turner v. Sixth District MPD, No. 14-424, ECF No. 1 (Complaint, Feb. 27, 2014); Turner v. U.S. Parole Commission, No. 14-448, ECF No. 1 (Complaint, March 20, 2014). The crux of each of his suits is that he was wrongfully imprisoned or illegally detained at the Correctional Treatment Facility here in the Dist rict. It is unclear, however, whether he is alleging that he was wrongfully arrested by the police, wrongfully2 detained by jail officials, wrongfully refused s upervised release, or wrongfully subjected to revocation of supervised release. In two of his cases, he has sued the Correc tions Corporation of America and the Sixth District of the Metropolitan Po lice Department, respectively. In the other three, the sole Defendant is the U.S. Parole Commission. In this case, his Complaint reads in its entirety: “I was wrongfully imprisoned on October 18, 2013[.] This wrongful imprisonment lasted 2 years end on August 10, 2013 [ sic .]” Compl. at 1. It seeks $10,0 00 in damages. Id. The USPC moved to dismiss, arguing that the Complaint does not state su fficient facts upon which relief may be granted and also asserti ng sovereign immunity as a defens e. Plaintiff responded with a pleading that said little, but refe rred generally to the FTCA [Feder al Tort Claims Act] and torts of negligence, false imprisonment, and abuse of process. See Resp. at 1. On March 13, 2014, this Court issued an Orde r, informing Plaintiff that his Complaint was “plainly insufficient on its face.” See ECF N o. 8 at 1. The Court did not dismiss the case, however; instead, it “afford[ed] Pl aintiff another opportunity to se t forth his claim in sufficient detail. He must explain what he contends occurred here, why it violated his rights, and why the USPC is the proper Defendant.” Id. at 2. The Court permitted Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by March 31, 2014, or, it warned, the matte r would be dismissed without prejudice. Id. Plaintiff has not responded. Perhaps he now believes that the USPC is not the proper Defendant or perhaps there is some other reason. In any event, as he has failed to respond to the Court’s Order, it will dismiss the case without prejudice. If Plaintiff decides to file yet another suit, he needs to decide what exactly he is complaining of. If his claim is that the police wrongfully arrested him, then he should so state and name those officers or the Distri ct of Columbia as defendants. If, instead, he believes that he3 was overdetained at the Correctional Treatment Faci lity, then his beef is with the Corrections Corporation of America, which he has in fact sued in civ il action no. 14-381. See Wormley v. United States, 601 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2009) (denying CCA’s motion to dismiss suit for overdetention at CTF). If, a lternatively, he believe s that the USPC was somehow involved and violated his rights in its proce dures or actions, he needs to sa y why. Before he contemplates bringing such an action against the Commission, how ever, Plaintiff should be aware that certain claims may be blocked by sovereign immunity or a failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See Stoddard v. U.S. Parole Commission, 900 F. Supp. 2d 38, 40-42 (D.D.C. 2012). At this point, despite giving Plaintiff a sec ond chance to explain the basis of his suit, the Court cannot even discern whethe r his imprisonment was the result of a revocation of supervised release or whether he was even under supervisi on at the time in question. In other words, Plaintiff has never stated how the USPC is responsible for his injur y. As a result, the Court will dismiss the matter without prejudice.

/s/ James E. Boasberg JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge Date: April 7, 2014