UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JAMES A. THOMPSON, JR.
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 97-1015 (RJL)
Vl
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
FILED
Q¢Z/ SEP302018
MEMORANDUM OPINION C|erk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
(September& 2018) [Dkt. # 195] Courts forthe DistrictofCo|umbia
\./\./\/\./VV\./\_/\_/
Defendants.
From 1985 through 1997, J ames A. Thompson, Jr. (“Thompson” or “plaintiff’) was
employed by the District of Columbia (“District”) Lottery and Charitable Games Control
Board (“Lottery Board”). In August 1996, Thompson Was transferred from his job as
Security Systems Administrator to a Security Officer position slated for elimination
through a reduction in force (“RIF”). Thompson Was eventually discharged, at Which point
he sued the District, the Lottery Board, and several individual Lottery Board employees
alle`ging, as relevant here, that he was terminated Without due process in violation of the
Fifth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After multiple trips to our Circuit Court,1 all that
remains of this case is plaintiffs due process claim against the District under Monell v.
Dep ’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 691 (1978). The District has moved for summary judgment
on plaintiffs municipal liability claim. Upon consideration of the parties’ briefing and the
l See Thompson_ v. District of Columbia (“Thompson 1”), 428 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir.
2005); Thompson v. District ofColumbia (“Thompson I]”), 530 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008);
Thompson v. District ofColumbia (“Thompson III”), 832 F.3d 399 (D.C.`Cir. 2016).
l
entire record herein, the District’s motion for Summary judgment is GRANTED for the
reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff held various positions with the Lottery Board over the course ofhis twelve
years of employment from 1985 to l997. See Stmt. of Undisputed l\/laterial Facts
(“SUl\/IF”) 1l l [Dkt. # 197]. In August 1996, Lottery Board Executive Director Frederick
King reassigned Thompson from the position of Security Systems Administrator to the
position of Security Officer. Id. at M 2-3; Thompson II, 530 F.3d at 9l6. The following
day, King told him that the latter position had been identified for elimination as part ofa
RIF, effective at the end of September. Am. Compl. ll 6l [Dkt. # 8]; Thompson ]I, 530
F.3d at 9l6. Thompson did not receive notice or an opportunity to challenge his position
transfer. He did, however, receive 30 days’ notice and an opportunity to challenge his
inclusion in (and separation pursuant to) the RIF, a separate “employment action” that
Thompson did, in fact, contest. Thompson 111, 832 F.3d at 342; see SUl\/[F il 7-8; Aff. of
James Thompson il ll [Dkt. # l22-8]; Letter from King to Plaintiffre: RIF (Aug. 27, 1996)
[Dkt. # l22-l4]; District l\/lem. oli`Law 3---4 [Dl