Al l c itatio ns he re in t o Ro um’ s c omp la int re fe r t o th e Am e nd e d Co mpl a int
. 1 BUONY ROUM, P la in t if f,
v. AD RI AN M . F EN TY , M ay orof t he District of Colu m bia, et al.,

Defendan ts. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Ci vi l A cti on 09 -00 38 1 (H HK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff Buony

Roum, procee ding pr o se, bring s this action ag ainst the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian F enty , the District of Columbia Chief of Police, Cathy L anier , and the he a d o f t

he Di stric t of

Col umb ia ’s c ity

c ounc il, Vi nc e nt Gra

y (c oll e c tiv e ly

“ de fe nd ants ” ) i n the ir of fi c ia l c a pa c iti e s. Roum’ s a lle g atio ns c e nte r a ro un d s e ve ra l a lle g e d c on sp ir a c ie s a g a ins t him by defe ndants and va

rious g overnme nt ag encie s. In his complaint, Roum allege s mis c e lla ne ou s v iol atio ns of

F or e ig n Inte lli g e nc e Sur

ve ill anc e Ac t, F I SA 5 0 U .S. C. §§§§§§§§ 1801 et seq., 1802 e t seq., 1804, 1805, 1811, 1824(e) (1)( A)(ii), 1829, 1 8 4 4 o f 1 9 7 8 a s am e n d e d

J u l y 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , an d

v i o l at i o no f

h i s c i v i l r i gh t s , p r i v a c y, First, Second, T hird, Four th, Eight, F ourtee n [section 1] Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, [and] Article Isection 9. Com pl. ¶ 1 (a lte ratio ns in o ri g ina l)
. Roum a lso br ing s c la ims ari sin gfr om a n a lle g e d f

a ilure to 1 comply with the require ments of the F ree dom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) as we ll as claims of false a rre st, false imprisonment, assault, and ma licious prosecution. B efor e the Court ar e defe ndants’ motion to dism iss Roum ’s complaint [#12] and Roum’s motion for summary2

judgme nt [ #14]. Upon consideration of the motions, the opposition thereto, and the rec ord of this case, the Court c oncludes that de fenda nts’ motion to di smiss m ust be g rante d and Roum’s mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt m

us t be de nie d a s mo ot. I. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Roum filed this action on Febr uary 26, 2009. In his complaint, Roum allege s a vast and intricate c onspiracy

involving numer ous fede ral a g encie s and off icials, the Metropolitan Police Depa rtment (“Police D epar

tment”), a nd ordinary

citizens, to surveil, ex periment upon, kidnap, and poison Roum. Accor ding to the c omplaint, the various par ticipants in the conspirac y have: i l l e g a l l y t a

p p e d h i s p h o n e s ; c o n d

u c t e d d a i l y p h ys i c a l s e ar c h e s o f h i s r e s i d e n c e an d

p r o p e rty; fa lse ly la be le d h im a

te rr or ist ; c ontamin ate d h is b e d a nd c lot hin gwi th r a dio a c tiv e c he mic a ls, po iso ne d h is f

oo d a nd too thp a ste , p lante d r a dio a c tiv e na no -t e c hn olo g y

in h is h ome , “ ill e g a lly planted microe lectrode s” in his brain; inserted a “rovingwireta

p” in his chest; used a

n “Ac tive De nia l Sy ste m” to m a

p h is b ra in a

nd a lte r h is d

re ams; inj e c te d H 5N 1 v ir a l f lui d into h is l un g s in
an atte mpt

to c re ate a

g lob a l pa nd e mic ; e xpos e d h im t o immun os up pr e ssi ve ra dio a c tiv e e le me nts to cre ate HIV/AI DS sy

mptoms; disseminated his private infor mation to police depar

tments and fore ign intellig ence ag encie s; kidnapped him and plac ed him in a mental hospital wher e he w as exposed to psy chiatric drug s simil ar to L SD; and denied his F OIA re quest for a cce ss to any files that the Fe dera l Bure au of Investig ation (“F BI ”), the Central Intellige nce A g ency (“CIA”) , or the De pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e may

have a bo ut h im. Roum also asserts that he ha s been f alsely arr ested a

nd char g ed with var ious crimes on J une 25, 2006, Oc tober 13, 2006, July 11, 2007, and De cembe r 9, 2007. All, or at lea st most, ofI ti s un cl ea r f ro mR o um ’s co mp l ai n twh et h er th e d i s o rd er l y

co n d u ctch ar ge 2 resultingfrom his J une 25, 2006 ar rest wa s dismis sed. Be cause the Court finds that Roum’s complaint should be dismi ssed, Roum’s 3 mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt i s d e nie d a s mo ot. 3 the re su lti ngc a se s a g a ins t Ro um h ave be e n d ism iss e d. F ina lly , Ro um a lle g e s th at he wa s f a lse ly 2
arr ested on Apr il 24, 2008, an arr est that Roum asserts led to his wrong ful conviction on Oc tober 23, 2009. De fe nd ants no w m ov e to d ism iss Roum’ s c omp la int purs ua nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 12 (b )( 1) and

Roum mo ve s f

or summa ry jud g me nt. 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD A m oti on to d ism iss un de r R

ule 12 (b )( 1) of

the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure “ te sts whether the cour t has subject matter

jurisdiction over the a ction.” Be rn ar d v . U .S . D e p’ t of De f. , 362 F. Supp. 2d 272, 277 (D.D .C. 2005). Under Rule 12(b)(1) , “the plaintiff be ars the bur den of establishing the fac tual predic ates of jur isdiction by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e.” Erby v. United States , 4 2 4 F. S u

p p . 2 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Luj an v . D e fe nd e rs o f W ild lif e , 50 4 U .S. 55 5, 56 1 ( 19 92 )) . “ Th e c ourt , in tur n, ha s a n ‘ a ff ir mativ e ob lig atio n to e ns ur e tha t it is actingwithin the scope of its jurisdictional authority .’” Abu Ali v. Gonzales , 387 F. Supp. 2d 16, 1 7 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Gr an d Lo dgeof F

ra te rn al O rd

e r o f P oli c ev . A sh c ro

ft , 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001)) . The c ourt must acce pt all the complaint’s well-ple d fac tual alleg ations as true a nd drawall rea sonable infe renc es in the plaintiff’s f avor. Thompson v. Capitol Pol ice Bd. , 120 F. Supp. 2d. 78, 81 (D.D .C. 2000). “The court is not require d, howeve r, to ac cept infere nces unsuppor

ted by the fa cts alleg ed, or le g al conc lusions that are c ast as fa ctual alleg ations.” Smith v. Koplan , 3 6 2 F. S u p p . 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Scott v. England ,4

264 F. Supp. 2d 5, 7 (D.D .C. 2002)). Althoug h pleading s filed by pro se litiga

nts are to be liberally construed, see H

aines v. Kerne r , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a pr o se litiga nt may not ignor e the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. Jarrell v. Tisch , 6 56 F . Su pp . 2 37 , 2 39 (D .D .C. 1987). III . A NA LY SIS A. Roum ’s F irst, Second, Thi rd, F ourth, and Eigh th Am endm ent; Ar ticle 1, § 9; F ISA; USAP AT RI OT A c t; and T it le VI I C lai m s M ustBe Di sm iss e d P ur sua ntto Rul e 12(b)(1) Be cause They Are F rivolous. I t is we ll s e ttl e d in

thi s Ci rc uit

that “ the fe de ra l c ourt s a re wi tho ut p ow e r t o e nte rt a in claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely

devoid of mer it.’” Le wis v. Bay h , 577 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54 (D.D .C. 2008) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine , 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)) . Dismissal is appropriate unde r Rule 12(b)( 1) when a complaint is so “patently unsubstantial” that it presents no que stion suit able f or dec ision. Id. (quotingBe

st v . Ke lly , 3 9 F .3 d 3 28 , 3 30 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 4) . Ac omp la int tha t is “ pate ntl y unsubstantial” is not merely doubtful or questionable, but is “e ssentially fictitious.” Be

st , 3 9 F. 3d at 33 0. Suc h c la ims inc lud e tho se that “ a dv anc e biza rr e c on sp ir a c y

the or ie s” or

“ fa nta sti c g overnme nt manipulations of [ one’s] will or mind.” Id. ; se eals o Ro um v . B us h , 461 F. Supp. 2d 40, 46 (D.D.C. 2006) ( “Complaints that are c omprised of ‘f ancif ul claims’ and ‘ bizarre conspirac y

theories’ are g ener ally

subject to dismissal on that basis.”). Her e, the grava

men of Roum’s claims is that defe ndants have participated in a vast a nd ong oing c onspiracy

ag ainst him invol ving nume rous fe dera l and local a g encie s and off icer s. He
a lle g e s th at th e se a g e nc ie s h ave e mpl oye d th e us e of va ri ou s c he mic a ls a

nd te c hn olo g ie s to regularly conduct e x periments and sur veillance on him over a pe riod spanningmore than te nRoum does not clear ly articulate a motive for

this conduct by

the ag encie s, but 4 su g g e sts the y

are mot ivate d b y

e ith e r a mis take n b e lie f t

hat he is a

te rr or ist , o r b y

a de lib e rate eff ort to label him a terr orist in order to conduc t experiments on him. Id. ¶ 31.

The F irst Amendment provides that “ Congr ess shall make no la w re spectingan 5 establishment of re ligion, or pr ohibiting the fr ee e x erc ise there of; or abr idgingthe fre edom of speec h, or of the pr ess; or the right of the people peac eably to assemble, and to pe tition t he g ov e rnme nt f

or a re dr e ss o f gri e va

nc e s. ” U. S. Co ns t. a

me nd . I . Ro um d oe s n ot c le arl y art ic ulate ho w the a lle g e d ta

pp ingof his ph on e s v iol ate d h is F ir st Ame ndme nt r ig ht. Roum a lso a sse rt s an Art ic le I , s e c tio n 9 vio latio n, but ne ve r s tate s what th at c la im 6 is, and nowher e in the complaint does he alleg e any fac ts remotely

cognizable under that provision of the Constitut ion. 5 y ear s. SeeCompl. ¶¶ 31-52. These a lleg ations are prec isely the ty pe of unr ealistic asse rtions 4 that this Court m ust dismi ss for lac k of jurisdiction. See R oum , 461 F. Supp. 2d at 46 (c iting Bestor v. Lieberman , 2 00 5 WL 68 14 60 , at *1 (D .D .C. Ma r. 11 , 2 00 5) ). Ac c or din g ly , a ny c la ims related to Roum’s conspirac y alleg ations must be dismi ssed under Rule 12(b)(1)
. Roum’s First, Second, Third, F ourth, and Eighth Amendment claims all ar ise from, a nd
are entwined with, his conspira cy alleg ations. In asser

ting his F irst Amendment claim, Roum
a lle g e s th at hi s p ho ne s h ave be e n ta pp e d a nd his c onve rs atio ns mon ito re d. Com pl. ¶ 7
. Hi s

5 Second Amendme nt claim arises f rom alleg ations that his October 23, 2009 c onviction was the result of a n ong oing B ush Administration conspiracy to preve nt him from buying a handgun Id. ¶ 6 6. Roum’ s T hir d A me ndme nt c la im a ri se s f ro m an a lle g e d q

ua rt e ri ngof a Natio na l Se c ur ity Ag ency operative in his house. Id. ¶ 30. His Four th Amendment claim ar ises from alleg ations of various and r epea

ted clande stine, phy sical sea rche s of his home over a

ten y ear period. Id. ¶ 10. His Eighth Ame ndment claim asser ts cruel a nd unusual punishment arisingfrom the va rious experiments and poisonings a lleg edly inflicted upon him. Id. ¶ 56. 6Roum’s claims include violations of 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801, 1802, 1804, 1805, 1811, 7 1822, 1824, 1829, 1842, 1843, 1844. 6 Roum’ s a lle g atio ns re g ard ingF or e ig n Inte lli g e nc e Sur ve ill anc e Ac t ( “ F I SA” ) a

nd USA PATRI OT Ac t violations si milarly arise out of

his incredible c onspiracy alleg ations. Roum
a sse rt s th at va

ri ou s f e de ra l a g e nc ie s h ave tr a c ke d h im “ thr ou g h h is c e ll p ho ne s, c omp ute r r a dio fre quency bar c odes via . . . G[PS] war satellites and CIA satellites,” a nd otherwise sur

veilled and sp ie d o n h im a

nd ta pp e d h is p ho ne s f

or mor e tha n te n ye ars , in

vio latio n o f v ari ou s F I SA pr ov isi on s. See id. ¶¶ 8- 30, 53-54. He also asser ts that his private information wa s obtained and 7 dis se min ate d to va

ri ou s p oli c e and

fo re ig n inte lli g e nc e a g e nc ie s in vio latio n o f F I SA o r t

he USA PATRI OT Ac t. Id. ¶ 54. F ina lly , Ro um a lle g e s th at he ha s b e e n d isc ri min ate d a g a ins t by the Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt i n violation of Title VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964. See Compl. ¶¶ 31, 70. As an initial matter, Title VI Iis inapplicable to Roum’s claims bec ause it addr esses only employ ment-re lated discrimination, see42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , and Roum does not alleg e that any of the named defe ndants was e ver his employer. A dditionally , to the extent R oum’s complaint can be
c on str ue d a s a lle g inga

c ogniza ble c ivi l r ig hts vio latio n b e c a us e of his “ natio na l or ig in, sk in color, [or] religion,” see Com pl. ¶ 7 0, the Court

de te rm ine s th at th os e a lle g atio ns are a lso entwined within Roum’s broade r conspira cy claims to label him a terr orist. The cla im is j ust one
mor e ite m on

the “ la un dr y lis t of wr on g fu l a c ts a

nd c on c lus or

y a lle g atio ns ” that c omp ri se Roum’s complaint. Se eRi c ha rd s v . D uk eUn iv e rsi ty , 480 F. Supp. 2d 222, 233 (D.D .C. 2007) (s tatin gthat pl a int if

f’ s o ff e ri ngof “ a la un dr y lis t of wr on g fu l a c ts a

nd c on c lus or

y a lle g atio ns to7

support her the ory

of a c onspiracy” wa s insufficient to allow the c ase to proc eed) (interna l quotation marks omitted). Th e e xtent and

so ph ist ic atio n o f t

he a lle g e d g ov e rnme nt c on sp ir a c y str a ins c re du lity , to say the least. As this Court has instructed Roum befor e, “[t]hese are prec isely the ty pe of inhere ntly unrea listi c alleg ations that must be dismi ssed for la ck of jurisdiction.” Roum , 4 61 F. Sup p. 2d at 47 . T he re fo re , th e Court c on c lud e s th at Ro um’ s c on sti tut ion a l, F I SA, USA PATRI OT Ac t, and Title VI Iclaims must be dismiss ed. B . Ro u m’s FO I A C l a i ms M u s t B e D i s mi s s ed B ec a u s e H e H a s No t A l l eg ed Cl a i ms Ag ain stth e Na m e d De fend ant s. Under FOIA, an individual who has submitted a pr oper r equest for rec ords but has bee n denied may

file suit in dist rict cour

t. See 5 U .S. C. § 55 2( a )( 4) (B ); Zivotofsky rel. Ari Z. v. Sec’ y of S tate , 444 F.3d 614, 617 ( D.C. Cir. 2006) (“Anyone whose reque st for spec ific information [under FOIA] has been de nied has standingto bringan ac tion.”). Roum alleg es that he submitted
r e qu e s t s f o r r e c o r d s un d e r

F O IAt o th e C IA , F B I, an d th e D e p artm e n to f

J u s t i c e , b u t“ [ t ] h e C IA and F BI failed to fur

nish plaintiff’s responsive r ecor ds,” as did the De partment of Justice. Compl. ¶ 57. Nowhere in Roum’s complaint, however, doe s he alleg e that he r equeste d rec ords fr om t he name d d e fe nd ants of

thi s a c tio n—F e nty , G ra

y , a nd L anie r— or

the ir re sp e c tiv e a g e nc ie s, or that the de fenda

nts denied such a

reque st. Accor dingly , to the extent that R oum’s complaint alleg es F OIA claims ag ainst defe ndants, those claims must be dismissed.Ad d i t i o n al l y , t o th e e x t en tR o umat t emp t s t o al l ege as s au l t , b at t ery , wo un d i n g, 8 false a rre st and/or fa lse imprisonment arisingfrom his beingtaken to St. Eliz abeth Me ntal Hospital in Febr

uary 2005, that claim is also time-barr ed pursua nt to D.C. Code § 12-301(4). 8 C. Ro um ’s Cl aim s o f F als e Ar r e st s, As sa ult , F als e Im pr iso nm e nt , a nd M ali c iou s P rosec ution Must Be Dismissed Bec ause They Are Tim e-Barr ed or NotYetRipe for Co nsid e r at ion . Roum a lso a lle g e s c la ims of fa lse arr e st s pa

nn inga tim e pe ri od

fr om Jun e 25 , 2 00 6 to April 24, 2008. See Compl. ¶¶ 59-66. Roum chara cter izes some of his claims as arisingfrom “fa lse arr ests,” id. ¶¶ 59- 66, howeve r, libera lly construinghis complaint, it appears that Roum also attempts to assert c laims of assault, fa lse imprisonment, and wrong ful conviction. First, def endants a rgue that Roum’s false arr est and a ssorted tortious claims that occur red be tw e e n F e br

ua ry 3, 20 05 and

July 11 , 2 00 7 a

re ba rr e d b y a on e -ye ar s tatut e of

lim itatio ns . M ot. to Dismiss at 9. Citing D.C. Code §12-301( 2)-( 4), Roum seems to argue that he ha s three year s to file his suit because his pe rsonal prope rty was “ damag ed and lost” when he w as ar rested. Pl.’s Mem. of P. & A . in Opp’n to Def s.’ Mot. to Dismis s at 13. Whil e Roum may

have thr ee year s to file suit for the re cover y of his persona l property

or the re cover

y of dama g es for

an injury to his personal prope rty

under D .C. Code §12-301(2)- (3), Roum’s false a

rre st, assault, and fa lse imprisonment claims are g overne d by D.C. Code § 12- 3 0 1 (4 ), wh i ch p ro v i d es a o n e y ea r s t atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s fo r “ as s au l t , b at t ery , m ay h em , wo un d i n g, malicious prosec ution, false ar rest or f alse imprisonment.” D.C. Code § 12-301( 4). The D istrict of Col umb ia

Cod e pr ov ide s th at th e statut or y pe ri od be g ins to r

un “ fr om t he tim e the ri g ht t o maintain the ac tion accr

ues.” Id. § 12-301. Roum filed suit in thi s Court on Febr uary 26, 2009. Acc ording ly , all of Roum’s claims perta ining to fa lse arr ests, assault, or fa lse imprisonment that
occur red pr ior to Fe bruar

y 26, 2008 are time barre d and must be dismissed. 89

Next, defenda

nts argue that Roum’s rema ining c laims for fa lse arr est and wr ong ful conviction, which r elate to his April 24, 2008 ar rest and O ctober

23, 2009 conviction, should be dismiss ed bec ause Roum fa ils to st ate a claim upon which r elief c an be grante d. The Court agree s. First, “[a] common-law fa lse arr est claim is defe ated by a subseque nt conviction on the char g es on which the claimant wa s arr ested.” Mc Cla m v . B arry , 697 F.2d 366, 370 ( D.C. Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds , 7 4 2 F. 2 d 1 4 9 8 , 1 5 0 9 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 8 4 ) ( ci t i n g Me na rd v . M itc he ll , 43 0 F .2 d 4 86 , 4 91 n. 26 (D .C. Cir . 1 97 0) ). Ac c or din g ly , Ro um’ s Apr il 2 4, 20 08 fa lse arr e st c la im must be dismis sed bec ause Roum alleg es that he w as subseque ntly convicted on the char g es for which he w as ar

rested. See Compl. ¶ 66. Fur thermore , Roum’s wrong ful conviction cla im mustalso be dismissed beca use he ha s not made the r equire d showingthat his conviction has bee n invalidated. Roum can only be
awa rded da mag es for his alleg ed wr ong ful conviction if he e stablishes that his conviction has been inva lidated by

“re vers[al] on direct appe al, expunge [m ent] by executive orde r, dec lar[ation of invalidity ] by

a state tribuna l authorized to make such de termination, or . . . a f eder al cour

t’s issuance of

a wr it of habea s corpus.” Hec k v. H umphrey , 5 12 U. S. 4 77 , 4 86 -8 7 ( 19 94 ); se eals o Harper v. U

.S. Attorney’s Office , 1998 WL796240, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 6, 1998) (“To the extent appellant seeks da

mag es for constitutional viol ations in connec tion with his alleg ed wrong ful conviction, he is not entitled to relief without showing that his conviction has be en i n v al i d at edi nan o th er

p ro ce ed i n g. ” ( ci t i n g Hec k v. H umphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)) ). Be cause Roum has not made such a showing , his wrong ful conviction cla im mustalso be dismiss ed.10

D. Roum ’s F ourtee nth Am endm ent Claim Must Be Dism issed Because He Has Not Al l eg ed S u f

f i ci en t Fa ct s to S u p p o rt H i s Cl a i m. Roum also asserts he wa s denied due proce ss in violation of the Fourtee nth Amendment. I t has longbeen he ld that the Fifth Ame ndment applies in the District of Columbia, and not the Four teenth, which a

pplies only

to the States. See B olling v. Sharpe , 347 U.S 497, 499 (1954);
se eals o Bu te ra v . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 235 F.3d 637, 645 n. 7 ( D.C. Cir. 1987) (notingthat
a lth ou g h d

ue pr oc e ss v iol atio ns by

state of fi c ia ls a re g e ne ra lly

ana ly zed un de r t he F ourt e e nth Am e ndme nt, the Di str ic t of Col umb ia

is s ub je c t to the Du e Pr oc e ss C la us e of the F if th Am e ndme nt) . B e c a

us e Roum is a

pr o s e pla int if

f, the Court

wi ll r e a d Ro um’ s c omp la int to alleg e a c laim under the F ifth, rather than Four

teenth, Amendme nt. The F ifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause pr otects individuals from the depr ivations of “life, liber ty , or prope rty , without due proc ess of law .” U.S. Const. amend. V. Roum seems to rely on the Amendment’ s pr ote c tio n f

ro m de pr ivatio n o f p ro pe rt y wi tho ut d

ue pr oc e ss t o a sse rt

his pr op e rt

y los s c la im
ari sin gfr om h is O c tob e r 1 3, 20 06 arr e st. De sp ite a ve ry lib e ra l c on str

ua l of the c omp la int

in fa vo r o f R oum, t

he Court mus t r e je c t hi s c la im. Roum a sse rt s th at he los t “ his re a l pe rs on a l pr op e rt ie s c e ll p ho ne , o the r e le c tr on ic d e v ic e s , le ath e r

b r ie f c a s e b a g , la

w s u it f il e s . . . , a

U n it e d St ate s Co d e CD RO M , Ca lc u lu s T e xt Book” as a r esult of his October 2006 arr est. Compl. ¶ 60. He off ers no other

detail re g arding the loss of his property , but alleg es “los[s] of his rea l personal pr operties” as one of the many harms he ha s suffer ed. Id. ¶ 6 8. Th e gua ra nte e of du e pr oc e ss h a s h ist or ic a lly be e n “ a pp lie d to de lib e ra tedecisions by

g overnme nt officials to depr ive a pe rson of life, liber ty , or prope rty .” Daniels v. W

illiams , 4 74 U. S. 3 27 , 3 31 (1 98 6) (e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) (e xpla ini ngDu e Pr oc e ss i n11

the Four teenth Amendme nt context). The purpose of the Due Proc ess clause is “to secur e the individual from the ar

bitrary exercise of

the power s of g overnme nt.” Id. (qu o t i n g Hurtado v. Cal ifo rn ia , 110 U.S. 516, 527 (1884)). Me re ne g lige nce or lack of due ca re by a state of ficial does not constitute a depr ivation of life, liberty , or prope rty in violation of due proce ss. Id. at 330-31; CH

S I nd us ., LLC v . U

.S . Cu sto ms &Bo rd

e r Pro t. , 6 53 F . Su

pp . 2 d 5 0, 56 (D .D .C. 2009). Al tho ugh Ro um h a s a lle g e d a signif ic ant n umb e r o f v iol atio ns thr ou g ho ut h is c omp la int , th i s C o urtd o es n o tre adan y wh er e i nth e c o mp l ai n tfa ct s th atco u l d b e c o n s tru edt o al l ege deliberate ac tion by

the police to depr ive Roum of his property . Roum makes no conver sion claim and f

ails to offer

any evidenc e fr om which the Court could deduc e an a lleg ation of de lib e rate de pr ivatio n o f p ro pe rt y . T he re fo re , th e Court

c on c lud e s th at Ro um’ s F if th Amendment cla im mustbe dismissed. IV . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, the Court c oncludes that Roum’s complaint shall be dismissed in its entirety . An appr opriate or der a ccompa nies this memorandum opinion.

Henr y H. Kenne dy , J r. Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge