Frederick v. Montgomery County Police Dept.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DARION FREDERICK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00373 (UNA)

)

MONTGOMERY COUNTY ) POLICE DEPT., et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is currently before the Court on consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and his Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. Upon review, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, sues the Montgomery County Police Department, the city of Silver Spring, MD, the District of Columbia, and the “DMV area.” See Compl. at 1–2. He does not provide addresses for any of the Defendants, in contravention of D.C. Local Rule 5.1(c)(1); see Armstrong v. Bureau of Prisons, 976 F. Supp. 17, 23 (D.D.C. 1997) (“there is no provision in the federal statutes or federal rules of civil procedure for the use of fictitious defendants.”), aff’d, No. 97-5208, 1998 WL 65543 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 30, 1998) (per curiam).

The allegations themselves fare no better. Plaintiff broadly and vaguely contends that Defendants violated his right to “freedom???,” see Compl. at 3, and that he “was stabbed and almost died. PD was racist after. Also experienced racist and fascist bigotry that was uncalled for in the DMV area,” id. at 4. He demands $1 trillion in damages. See id. No other information, context, or supporting details, are provided.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987), and here, the Complaint and its addendums fail to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a pleading 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).

The instant Complaint does not provide the Defendants or the Court with adequate notice of a claim. As here, “the court need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff[] if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint.” Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Nor must the court accept “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” or “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are not sufficient to state a claim. Id.

Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: May 15, 2026 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge