Ward v. Vogel ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    MILTON N. WARD III,                 )
    )
    Plaintiff,           )
    )
    v.                      )                 Civ. Action No. 13-1411 (ESH)
    )
    STEPHEN VOGEL,                      )
    )
    Defendant.           )
    ___________________________________ )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sues Stephen Vogel, a former officer
    of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
    claims that Vogel searched his automobile while investigating a traffic accident in violation of
    the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. (See Compl.
    [Dkt. # 4].)
    A claim under § 1983 is properly brought against the individual wrongdoer in his
    personal capacity. See Hafer v. Melo, 
    502 U.S. 21
    , 25 (1991) (“Personal-capacity suits . . . seek
    to impose individual liability upon a government officer for actions taken under color of state
    law.”); Brown v. Wilhelm, 
    819 F. Supp. 2d 41
    , 43 (D.D.C. 2011) (§ 1983 claims “are cognizable
    against the individual in his or her personal capacity only”) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    129 S. Ct. 1937
    , 1948 (2009); Simpkins v. District of Columbia Gov't, 
    108 F.3d 366
    , 369 (D.C. Cir. 1997)).
    To render a judgment against a defendant in a § 1983 case, the Court must obtain personal
    jurisdiction. Hence, “[w]ithout valid service of summons or a waiver of service, the Court
    cannot establish proper venue and personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and the case may
    not proceed.” Pollard v. District of Columbia, 
    285 F.R.D. 125
    , 127 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting
    Mann v. Castiel, 
    729 F. Supp. 2d 191
    , 196 (D.D.C. 2010)).
    The record shows that since January 6, 2014, the court officers have made efforts to serve
    Vogel with process at the addresses plaintiff has provided and at a last known address submitted
    in camera by MPD’s General Counsel. On August 8, 2014, the Court was notified that the
    Marshals Service has made four attempts to serve defendant at the last known address without
    success.1 Hence, the Court has no choice but to dismiss this case without prejudice. A separate
    Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    /s/ Ellen Segal Huvelle
    _______________________
    ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
    United States District Judge
    DATE: August 20, 2014
    1
    The return of service will be filed with defendant’s address information redacted.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2013-1411

Judges: Judge Ellen S. Huvelle

Filed Date: 8/20/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014