Madden v. U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs ( 2012 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
MARCIA LORRAINE MADDEN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12-0615 (ABJ)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN )
AFFAIRS, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, which
was removed to this Court from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by the federal
defendants. See Notice of Removal [Dkt. # 1]. Plaintiff has named over forty different
defendants in this case and seeks $37 million in damages. Compl. at 1. Several of those
defendants have filed motions to dismiss the claims against them, see, e.g., [Dkt. # 3, 4, 11, 12,
15, 18, 26], and plaintiff has filed a pleading opposing some of the motions, [Dkt. # 29], as well
as a supplement to the opposition, [Dkt. # 30].
Although plaintiff’s opposition to the motions to dismiss recites facts involving one or
more of the defendants named in this case, the complaint itself – which is the operative
document for purposes of a motion to dismiss – consists of a bare recitation of several causes of
action without any explanation or factual assertions. The substance of the complaint, in its
entirety, states: “Abuses/assaults; injustices/reprisals; employment discriminations and
terminations; slander and libel; defamations; invasion of privacy; malpractice, false
imprisonments; intentional infliction of emotional distress. Claim for damages, injuries, other:
February 29, 2012.” Id. Because the complaint does not contain any explanation of plaintiff’s
injuries or any facts in support of her claims, the allegations “constitute the sort of patently
insubstantial claims” that deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano,
586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 178 (D.D.C.
2011) (quoting Tooley for the proposition that “[a] district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
when the complaint ‘is so patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for
decision.’”).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. Should plaintiff
choose to file a new complaint, it should be filed as a separate action and should clearly identify
the claims being brought against any particular defendants and state the facts on which the
claims are based. A separate Order will issue.
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
United States District Judge
DATE: June 5, 2012
2