Eeon, Ronnie, and Sunshine Kahapea v. Federal Reserve Board

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 2, 2023
• Docket: Misc. No. 2023-0012
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) EEON, RONNIE, AND SUNSHINE ) KAHAPEA, et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Miscellaneous Action 23-mc-00012 (TSC) ) FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, et al., ) ) ) Respondents. ) ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Petitioner Brett Jones filed this miscellaneous action purportedly on

behalf of himself, seven additional named petitioners, and “other real parties in

interest,” against five named Respondents and “Doe Respondents 1 through 1000.” See

Pet. for Stay, ECF No. 1 at 1. For the reasons set forth below, the court will dismiss

this action sua sponte without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

The nature of Jones’ claims is unclear. The petition appears to assert that this

action involves, inter alia, “a foreclosure proceeding to evict a party,” as well as “[t]he

unlawful trading of mortgages and promissory notes on the financial markets.” ECF

No. 1 at 11–12. He asks that “the rules of the court” be “suspended throughout this

proceeding.” Id. at 14. The relief Jones seeks includes “[a] stay of the nonjudicial

foreclosure proceedings and collections until this matter can be fully resolved,” “[a]n

enforcement of the administrative order requiring the Respondents to follow the laws

Page 1 of 4 and regulations governing the Nonjudicial Foreclosure Act,” and “[a] referral to the

Attorney General’s office for investigation of any criminal conduct and/or war crimes

committed by the Respondents in relation to this matter.” Id. at 34. Jones did not

provide the court with an address for the petitioners, but contends that “this Court holds

jurisdiction to hear the present matter” because it “fall[s] under the regulatory purview

of the Federal Reserve, headquartered in Washington, D.C.” Id. at 19.

II. ANALYSIS

A district court “may sua sponte dismiss a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) without notice

where it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not possibly prevail based on the facts alleged

in the complaint.” Jafari v. United States, 83 F. Supp. 3d 277, 279 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 621 F. App'x

676 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122, 127 (D.C. Cir.

2012)) (internal quotations and brackets removed). “The Court is mindful that a pro se litigant’s

complaint is held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Jarrell

v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987) (citing Redwood v. Council of the District of

Columbia, 679 F.2d 931, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)).

But this standard “does not constitute a license for a plaintiff filing pro se to ignore the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure or expect the Court to decide what claims a plaintiff may or may not

want to assert.” Jarrell, 656 F. Supp. at 239 (citations omitted).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that complaints contain, inter alia, “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a). In other words, Rule 8(a) requires that the plaintiff “give the defendant fair notice of what

the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555–56 (2007) (holding that the complaint must contain enough “factual matter” to suggest

Page 2 of 4 liability) (citation and alterations omitted). In other words, a plaintiff must assert enough facts to

give the defendant “fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the [defendant] the

opportunity to file a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the

doctrine of res judicata is applicable.” Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977)

(citation omitted).

Jones’ petition does not meet the Rule 8 pleading standard. His factual allegations are

unclear—as is the legal theory ostensibly providing the basis for the petition. Thus, he has not

given the Respondents “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Further, it is unclear that this court is the proper venue for this case. See 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b). 1 Jones named the Federal Reserve Board in his petition. However,

there is no indication that the other respondents are also located in the District of

Columbia or that any events occurred in the district.

Moreover, it appears that this case may have been improperly filed as a

miscellaneous case. Miscellaneous cases include “(a) actions to perpetuate testimony as in

Rule 27, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) actions to enforce administrative subpoenas and

summonses; (c) proceedings ancillary to an action pending in another district; (d) supplementary

proceedings brought in aid of execution; (e) motions for return of property in criminal

1 Section 1391(b) provides that

[a] civil action may be brought in . . . (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction ....

Page 3 of 4 proceedings; and (f) requests for judicial assistance.” Matter of Leopold to Unseal Certain Elec.

Surveillance Applications & Ords., 300 F. Supp. 3d 61, 69, n.4 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing LCvRs

40.3(a)(1) n.1, 57.10(a)(1) n.3). Further, miscellaneous cases may “relate[] to a bankruptcy case

or proceeding,” id. (citing LCvR 403.3(c)(2)(iii)), may include a “motion or application filed in

connection with a grand jury subpoena or other matter occurring before a grand jury,” id. (citing

LCrR 6.1), and may include “[a]ny news organization or other interested person, other than a

party or a subpoenaed witness, who seeks relief relating to any aspect of the proceedings in a

criminal case.” Id. (citing LCrR 57.6). Assuming, arguendo, that Jones intended to address a

foreclosure proceeding, a miscellaneous action is not the proper judicial vehicle to resolve this

dispute.

Finally, while Jones may appear pro se, he is not authorized to seek relief on

behalf of other litigants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“[P]arties may plead and conduct their own

cases personally or by counsel.”); Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir.

1984) (rejecting pro se party’s attempt to represent other parties).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this court will dismiss this action sua sponte

without prejudice.

Date: March 2, 2023

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4