UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) KRI STOPHER A. PI PER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-506 (EGS) ) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBI A, )

) Def

endant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON I n this civil action filed pro se , plaintiff sues the District of Columbi a and the D.C. J ail for a n alleg ed assa

ult by a cor rec tions officer

duringhis confinement a t the J ail in J anuar

y 2007. 1 The District of Columbia moves to dismiss pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6) for f ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief c an be grante d. Upon consider ation of the pa rties’ submissi ons, the Court will gra nt defe ndant’s motion and will dismi ss the case acc ording ly

. 2 I . BA CKGROUND Plaintiff alleg es that on January 3, 2007, during the J ail’s routine c ount of inmates, an unidentified cor

rec tions officer

“ca me on the bottom left tear [si c] with a bottle of bleac h in his hand and thr ew it on me.” Compl. at 2. Plaintiff alleg es that the blea ch “g ot in [ his] eyes and on

Def endant c orre ctly

asser ts that the D.C. J ail cannot be sued sepa rate ly from the District 1 of Columbia. See Caldwell v. District of Columbia , 901 F. Supp. 7, 11 (D.D .C. 1995); Fields v. D.C. Department of Corrections , 789 F. Supp. 20, 22 (D.D .C. 1992). The District of Columbia is theref ore substituted as the pr oper de fenda nt. By Orde r of Oc tober 28, 2009, plaintiff w as advised to r espond to defe ndant’s 2 dispositi ve motion by

Dec ember

3, 2009, or risk dismissal of the ca se on what would be treated as a c oncede d motion. On Dece mber 29, 2009, the Court a llowed to be filed pla intiff’s document ca

ptioned “Motion for Continue,” whic h plaintiff indicates is his response to defe ndant’s motion to dism iss. Mot. at 2. The Court will deny plaintiff’s “motion” a

nd will consider it as his opposition brief.2

[hi s] arms,” and that his reque st to see a doc tor was de nied alleg edly beca use the medic al staff had “60 ne w intakes.” Id . 2-3. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 16, 2009, se ekinginjunctive relief and $57 million “for the pa in the office r ca use[d] me.” Id . at 4. I I . DI SCUS SI ON A cour t may dismiss a complaint on the g round that it fails to state a c laim upon which relief can be g rante d if, assumingthe alleg ed fa cts to be true a nd draw ing a ll inferenc es in the plaintiff' s favor , it appear s that the plaintiff ca n prove no f

acts " consistent with the alleg ations in the complaint" to support the alleg ed violation. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007). “ Whil e a c omplaint attacked by a Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismi ss does not need detailed f actua l alleg ations, . . . a plaintiff' s obligation to provide the ‘g rounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ [gene rally ] requires more than labels a nd conclusions . . . .” Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted); acc ord Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct . 1937, 1949 (2009). To state a § 1983 c laim ag ainst the District of Columbia, plaintiff must state sufficient fac ts showing that a

constitutional viol ation occur red that was ca

used or br oug ht about by

officia l municipal policy , City of St. L ouis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 122 (1988), or r esulted fr om g overnme ntal “custom or usa g e,” Monell v. D ep’t of Social Svc s., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). Plaintiff has not pleade d a cla im for which the D istrict can be held liable. He has not alleg ed an injury per se . See B rown v. District of Columbia , 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 ( D.C. Cir. 2008) (“The Supreme Court has plac ed within the ambit of this prohibition ‘punishm ents . . . which involve the unnec essar

y and wa nton infliction of pain.’ " ) (quoting Estelle v. Gam ble , 429 U.S. 97, 102-03 (1976) ). B ut even if his dema nd for $57 million in damag es “f or the pa in the office r

cause [d] me” suff

ices at this pl eadingstag e, the f acts do not establish “a

n aff irmative link . . . such that a municipa l policy [could be said to have be en] the moving for ce be hind the3

constitutional viol ation,” Bake r v. District of Columbia , 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 ( D.C. Cir. 2003) (citations and inter

nal quotation marks omitted); see id . at 1306-07 (c iting “numbe r of wa y s in which a ‘ policy ’ ca

n be set by

a municipality ”), a

nd liability

under § 1983 c annot be ba sed on a theory of re spondeat super ior or vica rious liability

. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct . at 1948-49; Atherton v. District of Columbia Off. of Mayor , 567 F.3d 672, 691 ( D.C. Cir. 2009); Graham v. D avis , 880 F.2d 1414, 1420- 21 (D.C. Cir. 1989). For the fore g oing r easons, de fenda nt’s motion to di smiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is gr anted. A sepa rate Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

SI GNED: EMMET G. SUL L I VAN UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE DATE: Mar ch 11, 2010