eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Federal District Court Cases
 District Court, District of Columbia
 2009-01

McDaniel v. Fenty ( 2009 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                                           FILED
JAN 13 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                           Clerk, u.s. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
Ronnie Lee McDaniel,                          )
)
Plaintiff,                     )
)
v.                                     )
)
Civil Action No.       09 0070
Mayor Adrian Fenty,                           )
)
Defendant.                    )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the complaint brought pro se and
plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e), the Court
is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff sues District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty for $10 million in damages
because he allegedly "refused to mediate and solve [an] issue on his city's police departments,"
that resulted in the deprivation of plaintiff s constitutional rights. CompI. Plaintiff claims that
Mayor Fenty made a "personal choice" not to act "after numerous contacts."
    Id.
     Although a
District of Columbia official may be held personally liable for depriving an individual of "rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,"
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , he must have
directly participated in the alleged wrongdoing. See Cameron v. Thornburgh,
    983 F.2d 253
    , 258
(D.C. Cir.l993); Meyer v. Reno,
    911 F. Supp. 11
    , 15 (D.D.C.l996) (citing cases); Price v. Kelly,
    847 F. Supp. 163
    , 169 (D.D.C.l994), affd,
    56 F.3d 1531
     (D.C. Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs claim
against Mayor Fenty in his individual capacity based apparently on the alleged wrongful acts of
D.C. police officers fails as a matter oflaw. 1 See Graham v. Davis,
    880 F.2d 1414
    , 1421 (D.C.
Cir. 1989) (citing Monell v. Dep't. a/Social Services a/the City a/New York,
    436 U.S. 658
    ,691
(1978)) (defendant cannot be held liable under section 1983 on theories of respondeat superior
or vicarious liability). The complaint therefore is dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
Date: December ~, 2008
1 Plaintiff has submitted a separate complaint against District of Columbia Police Chief
Cathy L. Lanier, which the Court will permit to go forward.
2