Irvin v. Facebook ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MATTHEW IRVIN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No: 1:22-cv-00385 (UNA)
)
FACEBOOK, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No.
1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court will grant
the IFP application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading
requirements of Federal Rule 8, in addition to other Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.
Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Preliminarily, neither the complaint nor the IFP application are
captioned for this court. The complaint is captioned for the “Circuit Courts of the District of
Columbia,” and the “Circuit Civil Courts of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit.” The IFP application
lacks a caption entirely. Therefore, both submissions fail to comply with Federal Rule 10(a).
Additionally, plaintiff provides piecemeal information regarding the intended defendants, in
further contravention of Federal Rule 10(a) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1).
Moreover, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain
“(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir.
2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted
1
so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the
doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). A
complaint “that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and
confusing material will patently fail [Rule 8(a)’s] standard, and so will a complaint that contains
an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully
distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments.” Jiggetts v. D.C.,
319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. D.C., No. 17-7021, 2017 WL
5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). The instant complaint falls within this category.
The prolix complaint totals 128 pages. It is disorganized and incomprehensible. Neither
the court nor the defendants can be expected to decipher what claims plaintiff attempts to bring,
or to discern any basis for jurisdiction or to plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, if any. Consequently,
it fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule 8(a), as well as the strictures
of Federal Rule 10(b) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(d)–(e).
For all of these reasons, the complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed. An order consistent with
this memorandum opinion is issued separately.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Dated: May 10, 2022 United States District Judge
2