Burns v. Carr

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2912
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THOMAS DENNIS BURNS, SR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-2912 (UNA) ) ) HERBERT CARR et al., ) ) Defendants. )

Memorandum Opinion

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff sues Magistrate Judge Melanie Acuna of D.C. Superior Court, four other

individuals identified by name only, and presumably D.C. Child and Family Services Agency. See

ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff claims “Fraud and Discrimination of Gender,” but has alleged no

supporting facts. Id. at 4

Although pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they must comport with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) 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. 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’s cryptic pleading fails to “give the defendants fair notice of what the claim is and

the grounds upon which it rests.” Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned

up). Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP application and dismisses the complaint without

prejudice. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

_________/s/____________ AMIR H. ALI Date: February 3, 2025 United States District Judge