Wagner v. United States Solicitor General

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MICHAEL L. WAGNER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-2572 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 3) and for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No.
1) and this civil action without prejudice.
A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be applied to a
formal pleading drafted by lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro
se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,
656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8 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 claim
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).
1
As drafted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in
Rule 8(a). Referring to an article published in a newspaper in 2010, plaintiff contends that the
actions or inaction of a prosecutor in California warrant investigation. See Compl. at 1. There
are no factual allegations regarding the prosecutor’s alleged missteps, however, and the
complaint fails to set forth a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction and to provide a short and plain
statement of a viable legal claim for relief this Court may order. Furthermore, a plaintiff may not
compel a criminal investigation by any law enforcement agency by filing a civil complaint. See
Otero v. U.S. Attorney General, 832 F.2d 141, 141–42 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Jafree v.
Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). “[A]n agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce,
whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's
absolute discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.
An Order is issued separately.
DATE: January 19, 2023 /s/
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
2