establishing Bar Counsel as a component of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals' Board of Professional Responsibility
How later courts described this case
- establishing Bar Counsel as a component of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals' Board of Professional Responsibility
Written by the judges who cited it.
The 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
2