Jenkins v. District of Columbia, 12090.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 12090.,12090. |
| Citation | 379 A.2d 1177 |
| Parties | Herbert JENKINS, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
John R. Risher, Jr., Corp. Counsel, Richard W. Barton, Deputy Corp. Counsel, and Dennis McDaniel, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellee.
Before KERN, HARRIS and FERREN, Associate Judges.
This case presents the question whether appellant gave timely notice of his claim for false arrest and malicious prosecution to the District of Columbia under D.C.Code 1973, § 12-309. We hold that he did not.
Appellant was arrested on July 16, 1975, on a charge of soliciting for prostitution. D.C.Code 1973, § 22-2701. After trial in the Superior Court, appellant was acquitted on September 29, 1975. Appellant wrote a letter to the Mayor of the District of Columbia on June 28, 1976, notifying him of a claim for false arrest and malicious prosecution arising from the criminal case. Appellant filed a complaint for false arrest and malicious prosecution on July 6, 1976, whereupon the District moved for dismissal, or, in the alternative, summary judgment on the ground that appellant had not complied with D.C.Code 1973, § 12-309. After a hearing on February 28, 1977, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. (Neither appellant nor his counsel attended the hearing, although the court had given proper notice.)
Appellant concedes that his letter of notification did not comply with the first sentence of § 12-309, which provides:
An action may not be maintained against the District of Columbia for unliquidated damages to person or property unless, within six months after the injury or damage was sustained, the claimant, his agent, or attorney has given notice in writing to the Commissioner of the District of Columbia of the approximate time, place, cause, and circumstances of the injury or damage.
He maintains, however, that the police report of his arrest, coupled with his trial and acquittal and the official United States Attorney "reports" on his case, constitute sufficient compliance with the second sentence of the statute, which states:
A report in writing by the Metropolitan Police Department, in regular course of duty, is a sufficient notice under this section.
Appellant's argument is contrary to the decisions of this court in Miller v. Spencer, D.C.App., 330 A.2d 250 (1974), and Brown v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 304 A.2d 292 (1973). These cases held that police reports satisfy the requirements of § 12-309 only if they actually notify the District of Columbia of the injury claimed and only if they do so "with at least the same degree of specificity required of a written notice." Miller v. Spencer, supra at 252.
The police report in the present case is of the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. District of Columbia
...of criminal trial proceedings as unacceptable substitutes for actual notice of claims under § 12-309. See id.; Jenkins v. District of Columbia, 379 A.2d 1177, 1178 (D.C.1977) (U.S. Attorney's reports and criminal trial reports were inadequate notice under § 12-309); Eskridge v. Jackson, 401......
-
Blue v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 10–1504 (JEB).
...Mayor] is limited to police reports.” Campbell v. District of Columbia, 568 A.2d 1076, 1078 (D.C.1990) (citing Jenkins v. District of Columbia, 379 A.2d 1177, 1178 (D.C.1977) (finding Fire Department report not equivalent to police report for purposes of § 12–309)). In the only case cited b......
-
Egudu v. Dist. of Columbia
...information regarding ‘time, place, cause, and circumstances of the injury or damage.’ ” Id. at 1262–63, quoting Jenkins v. District of Columbia, 379 A.2d 1177, 1178 (D.C.1977) ; see also Martin, 720 F.Supp.2d at 25 ; Pitts, 391 A.2d at 808. Applying that framework to this case, the Court f......
-
Cunningham v. District of Columbia
...criteria to serve as the requisite notice. See Allen v. District of Columbia, 533 A.2d 1259, 1261-1263 (D.C.1987); Jenkins v. District of Columbia, 379 A.2d 1177 (D.C.1977); Miller v. Spencer, 330 A.2d 250, 251-252 (D.C.1974); Brown v. District of Columbia, 304 A.2d 292 (D.C.1973). Appellan......