USCA Case #02-7056

Document #749449

Filed: 05/15/2003

Page 1 of 2

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

September Term, 2002

No. 02-7056

Filed On: May 15, 2003 [749449]
Corey R. Lewandowski,
Appellant
v.
Property Clerk, Metropolitan Police Department,
Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 01cv01517)

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.
JUDGMENT
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of counsel. It is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.
Corey Lewandowski was arrested when he attempted to enter the Longworth House Office
Building with a loaded pistol. Police seized the pistol, along with three pistol magazines, a holster, and
several rounds of ammunition. Lewandowski filed a motion for return of his property with the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, which that court denied, citing the District’s Dangerous Weapons
Law, D.C. CODE ANN. § 22-4517(e). Lewandowski appealed to the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. Thereafter, Lewandowski again sought
return of his property, this time by letter addressed to the Property Clerk of the Metropolitan Police
Department. When the Clerk failed to return the property, the appellant sued the Clerk in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, contending that the Clerk deprived him of his
property without due process of law by failing to provide him with notice of the reasons the property
was being withheld, failing to

 USCA Case #02-7056

Document #749449

Filed: 05/15/2003

Page 2 of 2

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

September Term, 2002

No. 02-7056

provide notice of his remedies under District law, and failing to provide an opportunity for a hearing.
Initially, we reject the Property Clerk’s contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction over
this case under the doctrine set forth in Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Lewandowski is not
“seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district
court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.”
Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). Instead, he is challenging actions by the
Clerk that took place subsequent to that judgment and raises a due process challenge to those actions
that the Superior Court was not asked to address.
On the merits, however, Lewandowski’s claims fail. His argument that the Property Clerk is
obligated to provide him with notice of state law remedies is barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in
City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234, 240 (1999). Any remaining due process claims fail
because “the District of Columbia provides adequate post-deprivation remedies, including an action in
detinue, and . . . judicial review of any adverse decision [of the Property Clerk regarding the return of
seized items] in D.C. Superior Court.” Dickson v. Mattera, No. 01-7120, 2002 WL 1359491 (D.C.
Cir. May 2, 2002) (citations omitted); see Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 537-44 (1981).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed
to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for
rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41(a)(1).

Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY:
Deputy Clerk

2