UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WARREN R. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. MURIEL E. BOWSER, et al., Civil Action No. 18-768 (CKK) Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (October 1, 2021) Plaintiff Warren R. Harris (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Harris”) moves this Court for summary judgment in favor of his Fifth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), and further moves to exclude the report and testimony by Defendants’ expert, Mr. Tim Gravette. Defendants Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, Director of the District of Columbia Department of Behavioral Health (“DBH”) Barbara J Bazron, Chief Executive Officer of St. Elizabeths Hospital Mark J. Chastang, and Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Quincy L. Booth (collectively, the “Defendants”) – having been sued in their official capacities only – oppose the Plaintiff’s motions and cross-move for summary judgment.1 For the reasons explained herein, Plaintiff’s [55] Motion for Summary 1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Barbara J. Bazron, the current Directory of DBH, is automatically substituted for original defendant Tanya A. Royster. In connection with this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order, the Court considered the following documents: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 55 (which encompasses Plaintiff’s Statement of Points and Authorities in support thereof and Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Pl’s SUMF”)); (2) the Declaration of Richard Lee [counsel for Plaintiff] in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the exhibits attached thereto (“Lee Decl.”), ECF No. 56; (3) Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and the exhibits attached thereto (referred to primarily as “Defs.’ Opp’n” although it is also a Cross-Motion), ECF No. 60 (which encompasses the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof); (4) Defendants’ 1 Judgment is DENIED; Plaintiff’s [57] Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Testimony of Tim Gravette is DENIED; and Defendants’ [60] Cross-Motion for Summary is GRANTED. I. Background In presenting the facts pertinent to resolving the present motions, this Court “assume[s] that facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the motion.” LCvR 7(h)(1). In most instances the Court shall cite to Plaintiff’s [55] Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Pl’s SUMF”), unless Defendants dispute or controvert relevant aspects of a fact proffered by Plaintiff. In such instances, the Court shall also cite to Defendants’ [61-1] Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Defs.’ Resp. to SUMF”) and/or to Defendants’ [60-5] Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Defs.’ SUMF”), with cites to Plaintiff’s [64-1] Response to Defendants’ Statements of Undisputed Material Facts (“Pl.’s Resp. to SUMF”), as needed. The Court shall also cite directly to the record, where appropriate, to provide additional information not covered by the parties’ Statements of Material Facts, or to provide applicable references to testimony and exhibits. Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals