Larry M. Derr, Jr. v. Simran Rahi, Esq., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Larry M. Derr Jr.’s claims arising from defendants’ prior representation of him in an auto tort case. The court dismissed the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 without prejudice for failure to plausibly allege state action, conspiracy, or race discrimination, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege state action because a private attorney's instruction to a subpoenaed police officer, and the officer's acquiescence in the attorney's trial strategy, did not constitute state-dominated activity or action under color of state law.
2. Plaintiff failed to state a § 1985 conspiracy claim because he alleged no concrete facts showing an agreement or meeting of the minds, and he alleged no facts showing that Defendants acted with racial or other class-based discriminatory animus.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a plausible racial-discrimination or equal-protection claim because his references to different treatment of white persons were conclusory and lacked facts showing that he was treated differently from similarly situated white persons.
4. After dismissing all claims within its original federal-question jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
5. Claims concerning grievances already litigated or that could have been litigated in Plaintiff's earlier malpractice action were barred by res judicata, but the court declined to apply res judicata to the newly asserted allegation concerning the instruction to Officer Ko because Plaintiff alleged he learned of that conduct only after the earlier case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Defendants acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged a conspiracy and the required discriminatory intent under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
3. Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged that he was treated differently from similarly situated white persons to support a racial-discrimination or equal-protection claim.
4. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.
5. Whether res judicata barred Plaintiff's claims based on grievances concerning Defendants' earlier representation.

Disposition

dismissed