Jones v. Rivera

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ALBERTA ROS JOSEPHINE JONES
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 23-654 (JMC)
v.
GERALDO RIVERA, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Plaintiff Alberta Ros Josephine Jones, acting pro se, filed a civil complaint against
Defendants Geraldo Rivera, the U.S. Navy, and unnamed John Does. ECF 1. the Court
DISMISSES the Complaint and this civil action. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s request for
additional time to serve Defendants. ECF 6.
Every civil complaint must include “(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). Rule 8(a) ensures that defendants can “file a responsive
answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata is
applicable.” Hamrick v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 2d 140, 142 (D.D.C. 2011). When, as is the
case here, a litigant is proceeding pro se, pleadings are held to “less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But a pro se litigant
1
Unless otherwise indicated, the formatting of quoted materials has been modified throughout this opinion, for
example, by omitting internal quotation marks and citations, and by incorporating emphases, changes to capitalization,
and other bracketed alterations therein. All pincites to documents filed on the docket are to the automatically generated
ECF Page ID number that appears at the top of each page.
1
still “must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Butler v. Cal. State Disbursement
Unit, 990 F. Supp. 2d 8, 8–9 (D.D.C. 2013).
The Court has reviewed Jones’s Complaint, keeping in mind that it is held to less rigorous
standards than a complaint drafted by a lawyer. Jones’s Complaint fails to satisfy minimum
pleading standards. The Complaint does not provide a cogent statement of Jones’s claims. It
repeatedly refers to “untruths” that Defendant Rivera purportedly told her that form the bases for
her claim for damages, but provides no factual support for these conclusory allegations. The
Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff is seeking copies of certain videos to bring an unspecified
claim against Defendants. The Complaint also purports to bring claims against the U.S. Navy, but
the Complaint does not have any description about what the U.S. Navy (or any John Doe
defendants) allegedly did to her. Indeed, the Court can ascertain no claim upon which relief could
potentially be granted based on the allegations presented. A defendant faced with responding to
this pleading would not know where to begin.
Because these, and other, factual deficiencies fail to raise Jones’s right to relief in this
forum above the speculative level, Jones’s Complaint is dismissed. The Court has the authority to
dismiss a complaint on its own where—as here—a plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 8’s
procedural requirements. See, e.g., Brown v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 164 F. Supp.
3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016) (dismissing a complaint sua sponte for noncompliance with FRCP 8(a));
Hamrick v. United States, No. 10-857, 2010 WL 3324721, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010) (same);
see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–69 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (finding a district court did not
abuse its discretion when it dismissed a claim sua sponte and for noncompliance with FRCP 8(a));
Nicole v. Nat'l Savs. & Trust Co., 250 F.2d 36, 38 (D.C. Cir. 1957) (affirming a district court’s
dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with FRCP 8(a)).
2
Additionally, the Court may, “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee,” dismiss a case sua sponte when a
complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which
is also the case here.
The Court also denies Plaintiff’s pending motion for an extension of time to serve
Defendants. Plaintiff filed this matter on February 24, 2023 and was thus required to serve
Defendants by May 25, 2023. On June 7, 2023, after the deadline for service passed, the Court
issued an order to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to serve
Defendants within the timeframe specified in Rule 4(m). In response, Plaintiff filed a motion
seeking an extension of time to serve Defendant Rivera. The Motion set forth current challenges
that Plaintiff is experiencing that requires her to have additional time to serve Defendant Rivera,
as well as an allegation that this Defendant “travels extensively.” The Motion did not allege that
Plaintiff made efforts to serve this Defendant in the time frame or explain why she could not make
those efforts. The Motion also provides no basis for her failure to serve the U.S. Navy during the
time period. The Motion as presented does not satisfy the good cause standard, however, it is moot
in any event because the Court is dismissing this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint and this civil action are
DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File
and Serve First Amended Complaint, ECF 6, is DENIED as moot.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 17, 2023
Hon. Jia M. Cobb
U.S. District Court Judge
3