Qtaish v. Malman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INEZ QTAISH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-03478 (UNA)
)
STEVEN J. MALMAN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF
No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The IFP
application is granted, but, for the reasons explained below, the complaint is dismissed, without
prejudice.
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues two individuals, Steven Malman, and
Phillip Radmer, both of whom are allegedly located in Chicago, Illinois. The complaint is spare,
difficult to follow, and cites to no statutory or other legal authority for the exercise of jurisdiction
or for the assertion of any legal claims. Indeed, the causes of action plaintiff intends to bring are
entirely unclear, as is the relief sought. To the extent the complaint is intelligible, plaintiff states
that, in 1999, she jumped from a building in Chicago, and that another woman, who set fire to that
building, also jumped from a window. See id. Plaintiff insinuates that she was injured due to this
incident, and that she pursued the option of filing a lawsuit, but ultimately, declined to do so. See
id. Apparently, after recently conducting a case “status” search, plaintiff alleges that she
discovered that, in 2001, defendants and others “open[ed] a case in [her] name without [her]
permission or consent.” See id. 1
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,
656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). 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). As here, “[a] confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does
not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d
163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Neither defendants nor
the Court are on notice of plaintiff’s intended causes of action, nor has she established any basis
by which the exercise subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Consequently, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. An order consistent with this
memorandum opinion is issued separately.
/s/_______________________
BERYL A. HOWELL
Date: December 12, 2023 United States District Judge
1
An electronic case search of case records on CM/ECF does not identify any case filed by
plaintiff, in 2001, in this District. See Covad Commc'ns Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp., 407 F.3d 1220,
1222 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (A court may take “judicial notice of facts on the public record”); Banks v.
York, 515 F. Supp. 2d 89, 109 (D.D.C. 2007) (A court may take judicial notice of the public docket
and record).