Flowers v. Swartz

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 24, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-1181
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ZACHARY FLOWERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01181 (UNA) v. ) ) CONRAD SWARTZ, ) ) 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, Conrad Swartz, located in Worcester, Massachusetts. See Compl. at 1. The

allegations are spare, at best. Plaintiff contends that defendant “tampered” with his settlement

agreement, denying him of the funds to which he is entitled. He appears to assert that the

deprivation of these settlement funds has rendered him unhoused. He indicates his intention to file

a lawsuit against defendant, as well as his insurance company, and his former attorney, though the

latter two are not named as parties to this lawsuit. The specific relief sought from this court is

unspecified.

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. Hedoes

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 defendant

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. Indeed, as pleaded, it is unclear if defendant is, in

fact, the party responsible for the alleged bad acts, or if the responsibility lies with non-parties.

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

this memorandum opinion.

__________/s/_____________ Date: May 24, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge