Sanders v. D.C. Government ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • FILED
    JUN 2 5 2013
    C|erk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    HEYWARD CARZELL SANDERS, ) Courts for the District of Columbia
    )
    Plaintiff, )
    )
    v ) Civil Action No. f q ' j
    ) 13 <@
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, )
    )
    Defendant. )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiffs application to proceed in
    forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the
    complaint.
    Plaintiff alleges that the District of Columbia has violated the Racketeer lnfluenced and
    Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") by conspiring with others to cause him to "lose all of his
    real estate properties." Compl. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that some of these properties were sold at
    tax sale at prices below market value and transferred to new owners without court intervention
    and in a manner inconsistent with established procedures for tax sales. See generally ia’. at 4-9.
    According to plaintiff, "[s]omeone in the District Govemment had to be pushing all their illegal
    paperwork," ia'. at 9, and he blames the District "for letting all parties enjoy the benefit of doing
    unethical real estate, which put plaintiff s good properties in a bad way to be lost, which effected
    his way of life, financially, physically and more." Ia'. at 13. But the gravamen of plaintiffs
    complaint appears to be that the D.C. government passively allowed others to commit crimes by
    allowing "illegal paperwork" to be filed concerning real estate transactions.
    A plaintiff establishes a RICO violation by showing "(l) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3)
    through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity." W. Ass0cs. Ltd. P ’ship v. Market Square Assocs.,
    
    235 F.3d 629
    , 633 (D.C. Cir. 200l) (citing 18 U.S.C. § l96l(l)(B)). A "pattern ofracketeering
    activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity," 
    18 U.S.C. § 1961
    (5), and these
    predicate acts include a host of offenses punishable under certain state and federal statutes, see
    18 U.S.C. § l96l(l)(B). These predicate acts must be "related, and . . . pose a threat to
    continued criminal activity." H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 
    492 U.S. 229
    , 239 (l989). RICO has
    a four-year statute of limitations that commences on the date the plaintiff discovered or should
    have discovered the injury. Rotella v. Wooa', 
    528 U.S. 549
    , 553 (2000).
    The Court finds that the complaint fails to state a RICO claim upon which relief can be
    granted. Although plaintiff lists several acts which may qualify as predicate acts, see Compl. at
    2, it is unclear which and whether the District of Columbia is alleged to have violated these
    provisions. Nor is it clear that there is a pattern of racketeering activity insofar as plaintiff is
    alleged to be the sole injured party. See W. Ass0cs. Lla'. ex rel. Ave. Ass0cs. Ltd. v. Mkt. Square
    Ass0cs., 
    235 F.3d 629
    , 634 (D.C. Cir. 200l) (plaintiff failed to allege a "pattern of racketeering
    activity" where plaintiff only alleges "a single scheme, a single injury, and a single victim");
    Zernik v. U.S. Dep ’t of Justice, 
    630 F. Supp. 2d 24
    , 27 (D.D.C. 2009). Moreover, although
    plaintiff generally alleges that the D.C. government conspired with a number of other parties, he
    fails to allege who within the D.C. government engaged in such conspiracy, or allege sufficient
    facts conceming any meeting of the minds between anyone within the D.C. government and the f
    other alleged co-conspirators. See Roa’riguez v. Ea'itor in Chiej: Legal Times, 285 F. App’x 756,
    759 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (affirrning dismissal of conspiracy claim where plaintiffs
    "allegations include no facts suggesting ‘unity of purpose’ or a ‘meeting of the minds’ among the
    defendants, a necessary element of a conspiracy"). Lastly, because the complaint is silent as to
    the dates of the alleged predicate acts, it is not clear that the complaint is timely filed within the
    four-year statute of limitations. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without
    prejudice.
    An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    /C%ai:
    United Statbs District Judge
    DATECVlT/FLO 03
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2013-0967

Judges: Judge Rudolph Contreras

Filed Date: 6/25/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014