Bond v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

• Decision Date: 06 December 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 10–01617 (RCL).
• Citation: 828 F.Supp.2d 60
• Parties: William C. BOND, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

828 F.Supp.2d 60

William C. BOND, Plaintiff,

v.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 10–01617 (RCL).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. 6, 2011.

William C. Bond, Baltimore, MD, pro se.

Kenneth A. Adebonojo, U.S. Attorney's Office, Kevin Hardy, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.

William C. Bond, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the U.S. Department of Justice (“the DOJ”) and DOJ officials (collectively “federal defendants”), the Washington Post, and its reporter Manuel Roig–Franzia (collectively “the Post”). With respect to the federal defendants, Bond seeks damages and mandamus relief for violations of his constitutional rights in connection with the federal defendants' failure to investigate matters that Bond referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland for prosecution. With respect to the Post, Bond alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and civil rights violations under the D.C. Criminal Code and the “federal civil rights act,” Am. Compl. at 3, as well as negligent supervision stemming from the publication of an article about Bond in the Washington Post's magazine. Bond seeks damages from the Post as well as injunctive relief.

Before the Court are the federal defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer the case [Dkt. # 24], the Post's motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 10], and Bond's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint [Dkt. # 26], as well as Bond's motions to strike portions of the defendants' briefs, which he includes in his opposition filings [Dkt. 13, 25]. Upon consideration of these motions, the oppositions thereto, and the record of this case, the Court concludes the defendants' motions to dismiss must be granted and that Bond's motions to strike and for leave to amend his complaint a second time must be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Bond's complaint ¹ represents the latest in a series of attempts to protect both his reputation and a manuscript that he authored in the early 1990s.² Bond is no stranger to litigation, and the claims he advances here derive, in part, from suits he has filed and lost in other federal and state courts. Because the facts associated with Bond's prior actions are relevant to the disposition of the present case, the Court retraces the contours of this winding road before arriving at its conclusion in this Court.

A. Bond's Copyright, Conversion, and Invasion of Privacy Actions

In 2001, Bond brought a copyright infringement action in federal court against parties who, after allegedly stealing a copy of his manuscript, sought to use it as evidence in a child custody proceeding involving Bond's now-estranged wife and her ex- husband. Both the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that this use of the manuscript fell within the “fair use exception” for copyright-protected works. Bond v. Blum, 317 F.3d 385, 390–91 (4th Cir.2003). Then, in Maryland state court, Bond sued various parties associated with the child custody case for conversion of his manuscript and invasion of privacy. These lawsuits were unsuccessful. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9–10.

Bond now maintains that fraud and unethical conduct mired the state and federal proceedings. Specifically, Bond contends that the individual who stole his manuscript perjured himself and failed to produce properly subpoenaed documents during the state proceedings. Bond also avers that this individual's attorney “instructed [him] to not produce the subpoenaed documents and to not testify truthfully under oath” in the Maryland state court. Id. ¶ 12. In addition, Bond alleges that two federal judges who reviewed his case acted unethically by communicating with plaintiff's former counsel and conspiring to deprive Bond of his civil rights.

B. Bond's 2004 and 2006 Criminal Referrals to the DOJ

In an attempt to expose these alleged misdeeds, Bond first referred the matters of perjury and judicial misconduct to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland (“USAO–MD”) in 2004. According to Bond, the Chief of the USAO–MD's criminal division told Bond that “he would be the Government's ‘star witness' in their forthcoming prosecution.” ³ Id. ¶ 19. The Division Chief “was fired” shortly thereafter. Id. ¶ 21. In May 2005, the USAO–MD denied Bond's referral in writing, citing “discretion” as a basis for the decision not to investigate. Id. ¶ 22. Bond then submitted his referral for reconsideration “in the summer and fall of 2006” and was rebuffed yet again. Id. ¶ 24. Bond suspected that “illegal discrimination” motivated the refusal to investigate. Id. ¶ 25.

Since these denials, Bond has repeatedly complained to the USAO–MD about “crimes committed against his person” and has requested, unsuccessfully, that his complaints be referred to “other DOJ entities.” Id. ¶ 62. Bond alleges Defendant DOJ officials “including persons known and unknown” have, since 2004 until the present, “acted with callous disregard for Plaintiff and his property and have treated Plaintiff with ill will, spite and hatred because of Plaintiff's juvenile past and the subject matter of his stolen property in question.” Id. ¶ 71. This failure of DOJ officials to retrieve his property has caused Bond “losses to his reputation, his personal life, his health, and his financial status,” as well as “emotional pain and suffering.” Id.

C. Bond's FOIA and Fraud Upon the Court Cases and His Collaboration with the Post

In 2007, after his attempts to impel a USAO–MD investigation failed, Bond filed three related actions in federal court: a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) complaint against the USAO–MD seeking “to gain the [USAO–MD's] ‘final report’ of their declined investigation which plaintiff alleged would show illegal discrimination,” id. ¶ 25, and two complaints alleging “fraud upon the court” by defendants in the copyright case. Id. Bond believed the USAO–MD documents could “show illegal discrimination” against him on the part of the DOJ. Id. Both the Maryland District Court and the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bond's complaints. Id. ¶ 26. Bond sought review of the dismissals by the Supreme Court, filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in late 2008 for the FOIA case and a separate petition in early 2009 for the two “fraud upon the court” cases.

In December 2008, Bond pitched a story about his petitions before the Court to Washington Post reporter Manuel Roig–Franzia. In 2001, the Washington Post published a story about Bond that Roig–Franzia had authored without Bond's cooperation. Id. ¶ 29. Bond now characterizes the 2001 article as “unflattering,” id. ¶ 19, and “a take-down piece complaining about how Plaintiff was living large as a free man in Maryland.” Id. ¶ 33. Nevertheless, Bond discussed with Roig–Franzia a “follow up” story “regarding Plaintiff's looming U.S. [sic] Supreme Court petitions for certiorari,” id. ¶ 29, that would feature his “legal battle to reclaim his stolen manuscripts ... complaints of corruption in the Maryland Federal Court and discrimination against his person because of his juvenile record.” Id. ¶ 33.

Over the ensuing months, Bond and Roig–Franzia met and communicated by telephone and email about the contents of the proposed story. Id. ¶¶ 30–38, 46–47, 49. According to Bond, at a December 31, 2008 meeting, Roig–Franzia agreed to the following requirements set forth by Bond: “1) that the story was time dependent to be published before the U.S. [sic] Supreme Court set a date to decide whether to grant [Bond's petitions for] certiorari ... and 2) that whole subjects could not be used for the story.” Id. ¶ 33. Moreover, Bond told Roig–Franzia in the same conversation that “anything which encroached upon the subject matters of [Bond's] ‘life story’ was not to be used in the story and/or was off-the-record.” Id. ¶ 35. Bond specified that he “would not cooperate” with any story that “resembled in any way the 2001 story,” id. ¶ 33, or that featured “the juvenile case or crime, the manuscript and its contents, Plaintiff's mother and other family relations, Plaintiff's wife and present marital discord, Plaintiff's dog, and Plaintiff's finances.” Id. ¶ 36. Bond explained to Roig–Franzia that his life story had value and that he wanted to “do something” with it in the future. Id. ¶ 35. The reporter agreed to these “requirements,” id. ¶ 37, both at the December 31, 2008 meeting and in a separate telephone conversation in early January 2009. Roig–Franzia assured Bond that “he had nothing to worry about with the replication of the 2001 subject matter because that story had already been written.” Id. ¶ 34. After this second exchange, Bond began to cooperate “in earnest” with Roig–Franzia, “giving extensive interviews, supplying experts & [sic] references ... and agreed for [sic] photographs.” Id. ¶ 39.

Bond was eager for the article to be published before the Supreme Court ruled on his petitions. On several occasions, he urged Roig–Franzia to expedite publication. Id. ¶ 42. Bond's first petition was denied before publication of the story. Id. ¶ 40. Bond and Roig–Franzia then spoke and “agreed that the second petition was [Bond's] most important” and that “[t]he story would come out in advance of that conference of the Supreme Court.” Id. ¶ 42. The second petition was also denied before the article's publication. Id. ¶ 43. After some doubt as to the future of the story, Bond agreed to more interviews and photos “under the continued belief that his legal battle would still be told.” Id. at ¶ 47. According to Bond “there were several conversations where [Roig–Franzia] convinced [Bond] not to pull his approval from the story.” Id.

The article appeared in the Washington Post's magazine on May 31, 2009, several months after the Court denied Bond's petitions. Id. ¶ 51. Bond was ...