Escobar v. Known by the U.S.

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0875
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOSHUA SEAN ESCOBAR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-0875 (UNA) ) ) KNOWN BY THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF

No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court grants the application and dismisses the

complaint without prejudice.

The Court holds a pro se complaint to a “less stringent standard[]” than is applied to a

pleading drafted by a lawyer. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, a pro se litigant

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239

(D.D.C. 1987). 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) (quotations omitted). The Rule 8

standard 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). The Court dismisses the complaint for the simple reason that there are no factual allegations

supporting an actual legal claim. Rather, the “Statement of Claim” section states:

There [sic] saying on a neuro device that imgoing [sic] through betray and degrade. There’s been beatings, poisonings, and assaults with bodily fluids. All over the U.S.

Compl. at 4. It is unclear what happened to plaintiff, who is responsible for whatever happened to

plaintiff, or when and where any relevant incident occurred. As drafted, the complaint falls well

short of Rule 8’s minimal pleading standard, and the Court will dismiss it without prejudice. A

separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: March 27, 2025 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge