['Turner Jr. v. U.S. Parole Commission'] ( 2014 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAVID L. TURNER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 14-89 (JEB)
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff David L. Turner, Jr., has filed three pro se Complaints in the District of
Columbia Superior Court in the last few months, all of which have been removed to this Court.
See ECF No. 1 (Notice of Removal), Exh. A (Superior Court Complaint, Nov. 25, 2013); Turner
v. U.S. Parole Commission, No. 14-261, ECF No. 1 (Notice of Removal), Exh. A (Superior
Court Complaint, Dec. 31, 2013); Turner v. Corrections Corp. of America, No. 14-381, ECF No.
1 (Notice of Removal), Exh. A (Superior Court Complaint, Feb. 3, 2014). The crux of each of
his suits is that he was wrongfully imprisoned and then illegally detained until 2013 at the
Correctional Treatment Facility here in the District.
In this case, his Complaint names the U.S. Parole Commission as the sole Defendant and
claims that he was falsely arrested and improperly incarcerated from October 18, 2011, to April
20, 2013. See Compl. at 1. He also alleges that “[t]he U.S. Parole Commission had hold on my
person for 25 mo[n]ths with no probable cause, at all.” Id. In addition, “the U.S. Commission
has implemented 16 month parole illegally.” Id. The USPC moved to dismiss, arguing that the
Complaint does not state sufficient facts upon which relief may be granted and also asserting
sovereign immunity as a defense. Plaintiff responded that he wished the case not to be dismissed
and to be returned to the Superior Court. See ECF No. 5 (Motion for Case Not to be Dismissed).
On February 21, 2014, this Court issued an Order, informing Plaintiff that his Complaint
was “plainly insufficient on its face.” See ECF No. 7 at 1. It did not dismiss the case, however;
instead, it “afford[ed] Plaintiff another opportunity to set 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 14, 2014, or, it warned, the matter would be dismissed without prejudice. Id. Instead,
Plaintiff has filed a “Motion of response to Defendants Motion for Dismissal [sic].” See ECF
No. 8. This muddled two-page pleading sets forth no further facts and, instead, cites to the
FTCA [Federal Tort Claims Act] and alleges negligence, false imprisonment, and abuse of
process. Id. at 2.
This Court is sensitive to fact that “‘[p]ro se litigants are allowed more latitude than
litigants represented by counsel to correct defects in service of process and pleadings.’”
Angellino v. Royal Family Al-Saud, 688 F.3d 771, 778 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Yet, the difficulty here
is that Plaintiff has never said what the USPC did wrong. If his claim is that the police
wrongfully arrested him, then he should so state and name those officers or, in some
circumstances, the District of Columbia as defendants. If, instead, he believes that he was
overdetained at the Correctional Treatment Facility, then his beef is with the Corrections
Corporation of America, which he has in fact sued in civil action no. 14-381. See Wormley v.
2
United States, 601 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2009) (denying CCA’s motion to dismiss suit for
overdetention at CTF). If, alternatively, he believes that the USPC was somehow involved and
violated his rights in its procedures or actions, he needed to say why. Before he contemplates
bringing such an action against the Commission, however, 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 second chance to explain the basis of his suit, the
Court cannot even discern whether his imprisonment was the result of a revocation of supervised
release or whether he is currently under supervision. In other words, Plaintiff has never stated
how the USPC is responsible for his injury. As a result, the Court will dismiss the matter
without prejudice.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date: March 13, 2014
3