Beasly v. Department of Child Support Enforcement

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 7, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-3050
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL BEASLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-03050 (UNA) ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ) ENFORCEMENT, ) ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application to proceed

in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring immediate dismissal of a case upon a

determination that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted).

Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied

to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But

“even a pro se plaintiff must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Hedrick v. FBI,

216 F. Supp. 3d 84, 93 (D.D.C. 2016), and must “plead factual matter that permits [the Court] to

infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., 789 F.3d

146, 150 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).” Rule 8(a) 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). It “does

not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., sues the “Department of Child Support

[E]nforcement” in Washington, D.C. Compl. at 2. He states only that “child support has been

deemed unconstitutional by [illegible] Court of Monasota [sic]” and demands damages exceeding

$1 million. Id. at 4. Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion does not state a claim to relief. Even

acknowledging that “when weighing whether a pro se plaintiff has stated a claim, courts must treat

technical deficiencies in the complaint . . . leniently and scrutinize[] the entire pleading . . . to

determine if any legally cognizable claim can be found,” Spence v. United States Dep’t of Veterans

Affs., 109 F.4th 531, 538 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (internal quotation omitted), nothing in Plaintiff’s

pleading even resembles a legally cognizable claim. Because Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply

with Rule 8(a), this case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/_____________ ANA C. REYES Date: November 7, 2024 United States District Judge