Julius v. Smithsonian Institution ( 2011 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
TYRONE JULIUS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 11-911 (EGS)
)
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, )
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action is before the Court following removal from the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The Court will sua
sponte dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
The Court “shall dismiss” an action in which a plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time if the court
determines that . . . (B) the action . . . (ii) fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). A court’s sua sponte consideration of dismissal
under § 1915(e)(2) is akin to evaluation of a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. All that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require of a complaint is that
it contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although “detailed factual
allegations” are not necessary, to provide the “grounds” of
“entitle[ment] to relief” a plaintiff must furnish “more than
labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–56.
To sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A complaint is plausible on
its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
Finally, a “pro se complaint is entitled to liberal
construction.” Washington v. Geren, 675 F. Supp. 2d 26, 32
(D.D.C. 2009) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972)).
Plaintiff, who is and proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, has filed a complaint that is extremely brief and
virtually unintelligible. It reads: “I Tyrone Julius P.O. Box
my adress to Smithsonian Institution and staff said a dress that
2
Tyrone Julius would not get moneys $26.00 drum gouro (what she
ben want 801 Alabama Ave S.E. Washington DC 20032.” Compl., ECF
No. 3-1, p. 14 (errors in punctuation and spelling in original).
Even when given the liberal construction afforded to pro se
pleadings, Plaintiff’s complaint wholly fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is apparently
dissatisfied that the Smithsonian will not give him $26 or a
“drum gouro,” but pleads no cause of action based on that
dissatisfaction. Plaintiff thus fails to give Defendant fair
notice of what the claim is or the grounds upon which it rests.
This action will therefore be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. A separate order
consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall issue this date.
Signed: EMMET G. SULLIVAN
United States District Judge
May 26, 2011
3