Graves v. Government of the District of Columbia Department of Public Works ( 2009 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
)
VETERA GRAVES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1499 (PLF)
)
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF )
COLUMBIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC )
WORKS, )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed suit against the District of Columbia Department of Public Works
alleging that the defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The matter is now before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The Court will grant the motion to dismiss, without prejudice, because the named defendant, the
Department of Public Works, is non sui juris.
Government agencies of the District of Columbia are not suable entities. See
Foggy Bottom Ass’n v. District of Columbia Office of Planning, 441 F. Supp. 2d 84, 88 (D.D.C.
2006); Kundrat v. District of Columbia, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2000); Arnold v. Moore,
980 F. Supp. 28, 33 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing Roberson v. District of Columbia Bd. of Higher Ed.,
359 A.2d 28, 31 n. 4 (D.C. 1976); Miller v. Spencer, 330 A.2d 250, 251 n. 1 (D.C. 1974)); Fields
v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Corrections, 789 F. Supp. 20, 22 (D.D.C. 1992). “In a Title VII
suit against the District of Columbia, only the District of Columbia, and not its departments or
agencies, may be the proper defendant.” Kundrat v. District of Columbia, 106 F. Supp. 2d at 5(quoting Raney v. District of Columbia, 892 F. Supp. 283, 289 (D.D.C. 1995)).
Opposing the motion, plaintiff argues that the District of Columbia is functionally
a defendant because “[t]his Court understands that the Government of the District of Columbia is
the defendant. The District of Columbia apparently understands that, too.” Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 2. Plaintiff has not, however, moved to amend
the complaint to substitute the District of Columbia as a defendant, nor has she properly served
the District of Columbia as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Court therefore will not treat the District of Columbia as a defendant. It will instead dismiss
plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. An Order accompanying this Memorandum Opinion will
issue this same day.
/s/________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: May 22, 2009
2