Flowers v. Goodman

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-1177
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ZACHARY FLOWERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01177 (UNA) v. ) ) AL GOODMAN, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court

grants plaintiff’s IFP application and, for the reasons discussed below, it dismisses the complaint

and this matter, without prejudice.

Plaintiff, who is currently staying at Adam’s Place Emergency Shelter in the District, sues

an attorney, Al Goodman, who appears to be located in Springfield, Massachusetts. See Compl.

at 1. The allegations are spare, at best. Plaintiff contends in a single paragraph that defendant has

withheld settlement monies from him, and that defendant informed plaintiff that he was only

entitled to $10,000, when in fact plaintiff’s insurance company values the settlement at $250,000.

Plaintiff alleges that he has been homeless for five years, ostensibly due to defendant’s

withholding. See id.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v.

Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) requires complaints to contain “(1) a

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a);

see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being

asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine

whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

A claim is facially plausible only when the pleaded factual content “allows the court to

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556

U.S. at 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). “The plausibility

standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that

a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A pleading must offer

more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,”

and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Here, Plaintiff fails to supply any details or context to support a cognizable claim. Indeed,

he does not specify the settlement at issue or its terms, when the alleged settlement occurred or

what it pertained to, or what the terms of the alleged attorney-client relationship were, such that

Goodman retained more than he was entitled to receive. Without such basic facts, neither the

defendant nor this court has clear notice of plaintiff’s claims.

For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies

this memorandum opinion.

__________/s/_____________ Date: May 22, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge