Deville- Nakdimen v. Ronald ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    )
    ADRIAN WENDY                        )
    DEVILLE- NAKDIMEN,                  )
    )
    Plaintiff,              )
    )
    v.                            )                   Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-03144 (UNA)
    )
    PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, et al., )
    )
    Defendants.             )
    ___________________________________ )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Currently before the court is plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons explained herein, the court
    will grant plaintiff’s IFP application and dismiss the complaint.
    Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) 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 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). When a pleading “contains an untidy assortment
    of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold
    conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments[,]” it does not fulfill the requirements of
    Rule 8. 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. Plaintiff, a resident of Atlanta Georgia,
    sues former Presidents Reagan and Johnson, as well as unnamed “family + friend + employees.”
    From there, no cognizable facts or claims can be discerned. As presented, neither the court nor
    defendants can reasonably be expected to identify plaintiff’s claims.
    Plaintiff has also failed to set forth a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction or his
    entitlement to any relief. The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and
    is set forth generally at 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
     and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is
    available only when a “federal question” is presented, or the parties are of diverse citizenship and
    the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at
    least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure
    to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
    Plaintiff fails to provide any basis for diversity jurisdiction. He is located in Georgia, but
    he does not provide addresses for any of the named defendants, and many of the intended
    defendants are not even identified by name, see D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1). He merely states that “USA
    addresses on file of government USA 1975-2022[.]” It is a “well-established rule” that, for an
    action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time the action
    is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 
    498 U.S. 426
    , 428 (1991). To that end,
    “the citizenship of every party to the action must be distinctly alleged [in the complaint] and cannot
    be established presumptively or by mere inference.” Meng v. Schwartz, 
    305 F. Supp. 2d 49
    , 55
    (D.D.C. 2004) (citation omitted). Here, the citizenship of the parties is entirely unclear. And
    plaintiff abjectly fails to state any federal question.
    For all of these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order
    accompanies this memorandum opinion.
    AMY BERMAN JACKSON
    Date: December 13, 2022                          United States District Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2022-3144

Judges: Judge Amy Berman Jackson

Filed Date: 12/13/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/14/2022