Rhem v. United States of USA ( 2016 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LEN RHEM, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil Action No. 16-0876 (RC)
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
:
Defendant. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed his complaint in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia on February 8, 2015, and defendant removed the case on May 9, 2016.
This matter has come before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 4]. For the
reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion.
On May 20, 2016, the Court issued an Order advising plaintiff of his obligations under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond to the
defendant’s motion. Specifically, the Court warned plaintiff that, if he failed to file an
opposition to the motion by June 20, 2016, the Court would treat the motion as conceded. To
date, plaintiff neither has filed any opposition to defendant’s motion nor has requested more time
to do so. Mail sent to plaintiff at his address of record has not been returned by the United States
Postal Service. The Court, therefore, will treat defendant’s motion as conceded. See Fox v. Am.
Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 2004); LCvR 7(b).
If the Court were to consider the merits of defendant’s motion, dismissal of the complaint
still is warranted. The Court is mindful that a complaint filed by a pro se litigant is held to a less
stringent standard than is applied to a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nevertheless, even a pro se litigant must comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain
statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment
for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard
of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claims being asserted, sufficient to prepare
a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res
judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
The Court has reviewed the complaint and finds that it is incomprehensible. All that can
be deciphered is that plaintiff brings the case against the United States alleging constitutional
violations and seeking monetary damages for which there facially does not appear to be a waiver
of sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The complaint does not
appear to state the ground upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, or include a statement of
a cognizable claim showing plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or set forth the basis of his demand
for a judgment for $20 million. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a).
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: June 28, 2016 /s/
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge