Kinard v. Office of Bar Counsel

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJuly 22, 2010
DocketCivil Action No. 2010-1242
StatusPublished

This text of Kinard v. Office of Bar Counsel (Kinard v. Office of Bar Counsel) 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
Kinard v. Office of Bar Counsel, (D.D.C. 2010).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED JUL 2 2 2010 Clerk. U S OJ t· Joseph Kinard, ) Courts fo'r the ~;~fr~~ ~:~~~~~ra ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 10 1242 Office of Bar Counsel et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application

to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's action upon a

determination that the complaint, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted).

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin, sues the

District of Columbia Office of Bar Counsel and two of its employees under the Federal Tort

Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.c. §§ 2671 et seq., and the Freedom ofInformation Act ("FOIA"),

5 U.S.C. § 552. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages stemming

from defendants' alleged refusal to produce the Oath of Office of the assistant United States

attorney who prosecuted him in this Court in 1997. See CompI. ,-r,-r 6-19, 23-25; id at 7

("Demands").

Plaintiff states no claim under either the FTCA or the FOIA because those statutes apply

only to the United States and its agencies and officials, which the named defendants are not. See Nwachukwu v. Rooney, 362 F. Supp. 2d 183, 192 (D.D.C. 2005) (establishing Bar Counsel as a

component of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals' Board of Professional Responsibility).

To the extent that plaintiff has "a common-law right of access to public records that stands

independently of the Freedom of Information Act," Hill v. Fed. Judicial Center, 238 Fed. Appx.

622,623 (D.C. Cir. 2007), his recourse lies in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. A

separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

~~_~U ,JJV'-'7 -tt United States Distr ct Judge Date: July ~, 2010

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

Related

Nwachukwu v. Rooney
362 F. Supp. 2d 183 (District of Columbia, 2005)
Hill v. Federal Judicial Center
238 F. App'x 622 (D.C. Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kinard v. Office of Bar Counsel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinard-v-office-of-bar-counsel-dcd-2010.