Demitry v. Rosman

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: December 22, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-3780
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER DEMITRY,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 23-3780 (JMC)

v.

MACKENZIE ROSMAN,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Christopher Demitry filed a civil complaint against Defendant Mackenzie

Rosman, alleging unspecified violations of his civil rights. For the reasons discussed in greater

detail below, the Court DISMISSES the complaint.

I. Background

On December 20, 2023, Christopher Demitry filed a Complaint alleging “[p]hysical

damage and lasting psychological impacts” and naming 7th Heaven’s lead actress—Mackenzie

Rosman—as the sole defendant. ECF 1 at 1. Demitry’s complaint covers a range of topics: his

kindergarten education, id. at 1, his guilt over biting Rosman, id. at 2–3, run-ins with the FBI,

Secret Service, and CIA, id. at 4–5, his belief that he is the secret son of Israeli military officer

Yonatan Netenyahu, id. at 5, and how he discovered Rosman is his long-lost sister, id. at 4. Demitry

seeks no damages but only that the Court “help [him] get the truth to Mackenzie.” Id. at 6.

Defendant has not yet responded to Plaintiff’s complaint.

II. Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires civil complaints to include “a short and plain

statement” of the court’s jurisdiction and the “claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

1 It does not demand “detailed factual allegations,” but it does require enough factual information

“to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007). These procedural requirements promote fairness in litigation—Rule 8(a) is

intended to “give the defendant fair notice of what the … claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests.” Id. (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

Pleadings 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

pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Demitry’s complaint fails

to do so. The complaint does not supply any statement of the Court’s jurisdiction or the claim that

entitles him to relief, much less a short and plain statement of either. See ECF 1. Even construing

Demitry’s complaint liberally, the Court cannot make out his theory of how Rosman violated his

civil rights or any other law.

Demitry’s complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to comply with FRCP 8(a). The

Court acknowledges that dismissing a case sua sponte is an unusual step, but the Court has the

authority to do so when plaintiffs fail to comply with procedural rules. See, e.g., Brown v.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2016)

(dismissing a complaint sua sponte for failing to comply 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 no abuse of discretion where a district

court dismissed a claim without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)).

The Court directs Demitry to review Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If he

believes that he has a case that can be brought in Federal Court, he may file a complaint that

comports with the Federal Rules.

2 III. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: December 22, 2023

JIA M. COBB U.S. District Court Judge