Brooks v. Harris

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 1, 2011
DocketCivil Action No. 2010-1993
StatusPublished

This text of Brooks v. Harris (Brooks v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brooks v. Harris, (D.D.C. 2011).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) MARCUS DOMINIC BROOKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 10-1993 (JEB) ) HARRIS, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against, among

other Defendants, West Virginia State Trooper Kevin Plumer and Special Agents Lockhart and

Dean of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF Defendants”). After

removal of the case to this Court, Plumer and the ATF Defendants have separately filed Motions

to Dismiss, alleging, inter alia, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to these motions on or before March

15, 2011, and warned Plaintiff that failure to timely respond could result in these motions being

granted as conceded. The Court later extended the date by which this response was due to April

15, 2011. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any response.

Under Local Rule 7(b), the Court may grant as conceded motions to which Plaintiff files

no response, and such a ruling is appropriate here. Not only has Plaintiff failed to respond or

offer any reason for such failure, but Defendants have strong arguments on the merits. For

example, the Court has no personal jurisdiction over Plumer where all of the acts complained of

occurred in West Virginia, and he has no ties, general or specific, to the District of Columbia. Similarly, the ATF Defendants point out that they are not proper parties in their official capacity,

the Court has no jurisdiction over them in their personal capacity, and the statute of limitations

bars the suit.

As a result, the Court will grant the Motions. A separate Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion shall issue this date.

/s/ JAMES E. BOASBERG DATE: June 1, 2011 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brooks v. Harris, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-harris-dcd-2011.