Johnson v. Bowser

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JAMES F. JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 24-3101 (UNA)

)

MURIEL BOWSER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

It appears that Plaintiff is the recipient of multiple photo enforcement tickets because a motor vehicle registered in his name was detected speeding and committing other traffic infractions. See generally Compl. (ECF No. 1), Ex. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4, 9, 22-23, 26) (page numbers designated by CM/ECF). It further appears that Plaintiff unsuccessfully contested certain tickets. See, e.g., id., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1 at 9-11, 25). Plaintiff estimates that his fines and penalties total approximately $8,000. See id. at 4. In this action, Plaintiff demands a hearing, see id., and a declaratory judgment, see, e.g., id. at 1, 2, deeming the tickets invalid and dismissing them, see id. at 4. Plaintiff has chosen the wrong forum for adjudication of his claims.

A Hearing Examiner conducts a hearing for the adjudication of traffic infractions. See D.C. Code §§ 50-2302.06 (moving infractions), 50-2303.06 (parking, standing, stopping infractions); 18 D.C. Mun. Regs. §§ 1004, 1007, 1041. If the vehicle operator is found liable, he or she may request reconsideration, see D.C. Code § 50-2303.11(a), and if reconsideration is denied, he or she may appeal the Hearing Examiner’s decision to the Traffic Adjudication Appeals Board (“TAAB”) of the District of Columbia Department of Public Works, see D.C.

2

Code § 50-2304.02(a); 18 D.C. Mun. Regs. §§ 1042.2, 1044. An appeal of the TAAB’s decision goes before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code § 50-2304.05.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) without prejudice as moot. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: November 21, 2024 ANA C. REYES United States District Judge