Chen v. District of Columbia

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAY CHEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-03103 (UNA) ) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff May Chen, a District of Columbia resident, sues the District of Columbia,

Maryland, and California, seeking “criminal prosecution,” a “barring notice,” and a “monetary

penal[t]y of $5900000000000000000000” presumably for her various “physical” and “mental”

injuries.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5. Chen mentions employment, housing, and age discrimination

but alleges no supporting facts.

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 “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). 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. 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) (cleaned up). Such pleading ensures that

defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive

answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies.

See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). It also assists the court in determining

whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Because Plaintiff fails “to articulate either the required factual or legal bases for [the]

requested relief,” Karim-Panahi v. U.S. Congress, Senate and House of Representatives, 105 F.

App’x. 270, 274 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (per curiam), Defendants lack “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). Moreover, the complaint against Maryland and California triggers the Eleventh Amendment,

which generally immunizes states from suits filed against them in federal court and for which no

waiver is established here. 1 Consequently, the Court dismisses the complaint and this case by

separate order.

_________/s/___________ ANA C. REYES Date: December 5, 2024 United States District Judge

1 The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Supreme Court “long ago held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a citizen from bringing suit against the citizen’s own State in federal court, even though the express terms of the Amendment refer only to suits by citizens of another State.” Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472 (1987).