SANDERS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER reinstating 95 defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to Count 2. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 14, 2017. (MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
Civil Action No. 06-1411 (PLF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On February 21, 2017, the Court reinstated plaintiff Christopher Sanders’s
procedural due process claim (“Count 2”) in the case, after Sanders exhausted his administrative
remedies before the Office of Employee Appeals. See Order (Feb. 21, 2017) at 1-2 [Dkt. 141]. 1
This determination also resurrected a portion of Sanders’s motion for summary judgment, which
the Court previously had denied as moot for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See
Sanders v. District of Columbia, 85 F. Supp. 3d 523, 539 (D.D.C. 2015); see also Plaintiff’s
Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II of the Complaint at 1 [Dkt. 96].
Defendants have asked that their motion for summary judgment on Count 2 also be reinstated.
See Defendants’ (1) Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II and (2) Supplemental
In his complaint, Sanders alleged both a substantive and procedural due process
claim in Count 2. The Court previously dismissed Sanders’s substantive due process claim
because Sanders failed to show that he had a clearly established fundamental right in his
eligibility to be rehired by the DC Metropolitan Police Department. See Sanders v. District of
Columbia, 522 F. Supp. 2d 83, 91-92 (D.D.C. 2007). By opinion and order on April 7, 2015, the
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to
the First Amendment Claim in Count 1. See Sanders v. District of Columbia, 85 F. Supp. 3d at
Authority in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 2 [Dkt. 148]. The Court
will grant their request.
On July 13, 2017, the Court will hear oral argument regarding plaintiff’s and
defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the procedural due process claim in Count
2. In the Court’s view, each party’s original motion for summary judgment has been revived
with regard to the procedural due process claim in Count 2. Because defendants’ original motion
for summary judgment [Dkt. 96] dealt largely with whether Sanders had failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies with regard to Count 2, the Court will consider defendants’ most recent
filing [Dkt. 148] as a supplemental memorandum to its motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 95]
and as supplemental authority in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 95] is reinstated
with respect to Count 2.
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: June 14, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?