Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-1972 (UNA)
12-31-2018
JAMES F. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court construes Plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunction, ECF No. 1, as a civil complaint. Plaintiff states that he "was ordered to register as a[] District of Columbia sex offender during the 2003-2004 year . . . after his release from the Federal Bureau of Prisons after being paroled for a[] 1984 narcotics conviction." Compl. at 3. Plaintiff maintains that he was acquitted of rape in 1976, see id. at 2, yet his own exhibits reflect a conviction for rape while armed in 1976, id., Ex. (Judgment and Commitment Order). Nevertheless, plaintiff challenges the requirement that he register as a sex offender, see id. at 2-3, and seeks an order barring defendants from "dispensing information, relating certain materials relating to sex offender registration, media viewing, and sex offender registrry [sic] in it's [sic] entirety, and or any child related sexual misconduct in any manner," id. at 4.
The plaintiff's status as a registered sex offender has come before this Court before. In 2012, plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus which sought an order compelling the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency to relieve him of his obligation to register as a sex offender for life. The Court denied the petition because plaintiff "failed to demonstrate the requirements for mandamus relief, and he has utilized - albeit unsuccessfully - an adequate remedy under D.C. Code § 22-4004 available to him in Superior Court." Johnson v. Gray, Civ. No. 12-0967, 2012 WL 5512869, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2012), aff'd sub nom. Johnson v. Ware, No. 12-5388, 2013 WL 2395115 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 30, 2013).
Rape is a registration offense, see D.C. Code § 22-4001(8), for which an offender must register for life, see D.C. Code § 22-4001(6). Any challenge to such designation is available under D.C. Code § 22-4004 in the Superior Court. See In re JVM, 851 A.2d 431, 453 (D.C. 2004). It is apparent that plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged his designation as a Class A offender, see Johnson, 2012 WL 5512869, at *1 (citing Johnson v. CSOSA, No. F-33483-76 (Super. Ct. Sept. 27, 2004) (denying petitioner's motion "challenging his status as a sex offender under the [SORA]")), and this Court is without jurisdiction to disturb this ruling.
The Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: December 31, 2018
/s/_________
United States District Judge