Furtado Jr. v. Furtado Sr.

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMay 13, 2026
DocketCivil Action No. 2025-4070
StatusPublished

This text of Furtado Jr. v. Furtado Sr. (Furtado Jr. v. Furtado Sr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Furtado Jr. v. Furtado Sr., (D.D.C. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROCKIE FURTADO JR.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-4070 (JMC)

v.

ROCKIE FURTADO SR.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 18, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Rockie Furtado Jr. filed a civil complaint. ECF 1.

On December 8, 2025, this Court dismissed that complaint without prejudice for failure to comply

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). ECF 5; ECF 6. Plaintiff timely filed an amended

complaint on December 19, 2025. ECF 9. The Court again dismisses the complaint under Rule 8.

The amended complaint still fails to “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 (2007). In

addition to a single sentence in which Plaintiff alleges Defendant “forced [him] to use drugs at a

young age for over a decade,” Plaintiff also mentions that Defendant “chang[ed] [Plaintiff’s] legal

name . . . just to mislead, bully[,] and keep [Plaintiff] in the dark while manipulat[ing Plaintiff]

into using the same drugs [Defendant] used only to outshine (impressions of almightiness) and

expose” Plaintiff. ECF 9 at 4. In a notice Plaintiff filed to supplement his amended complaint, he

further alleges that he has been “held against [his] will for years.” ECF 10 at 1. As with his initial

complaint, Plaintiff still “does not reference a cause of action.” ECF 5 at 2. Nor is it apparent from

the amended complaint what legal claim Plaintiff is asserting—he alludes to violations of criminal

laws, as well as his own “local and federal issues” and “serious mental health” issues. ECF 10 at

1 1. And although Plaintiff has now indicated that he is relying on diversity jurisdiction—the first

complaint invoked federal question jurisdiction, see ECF 1 at 3—he has not included any

allegations related to the amount in controversy, see ECF 9 at 4. Absent those allegations, and

absent any indication of what legal claim Plaintiff is asserting, the Court cannot determine whether

either basis for federal jurisdiction is satisfied. Plaintiff has therefore still failed to provide a “plain

statement of the claim showing that” he is “entitled to relief” and “of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). The Court therefore again dismisses his complaint for

failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

That conclusion also requires denial of the pending motion for a default judgment. ECF 17.

Setting aside that Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 55’s procedure for seeking a default judgment

by first filing an “affidavit or otherwise” showing Defendant’s default, Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), the

Court cannot enter a default judgment. Before awarding a default judgment, the Court must assure

itself that “the allegations in the complaint are well-pled.” Eckardt v. KBR Luxury, Inc., No. 25-

cv-2168, 2025 WL 2926423, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 15, 2025). Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not

satisfy Rule 8, the complaint’s allegations fail that standard.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is therefore DISMISSED for failure to comply with

Rule 8(a)(2) for largely the same reasons stated in this Court’s prior opinion. See ECF 5. That is,

“even construing the [amended] complaint liberally, the Court [still] is unable to identify what

cognizable harm [Plaintiff] is alleging” and “how the law entitles him to any relief.” Id. And as

noted in the Court’s prior opinion, because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint that

comports with Rule 8, this action shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Id. at 3 (citing

Brown v. WMATA, 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016)). The other pending motions—for a

2 protective order, ECF 18, and to expedite the answer, ECF 19—are denied as moot. A separate

order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge

Date: May 13, 2026

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Brown v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
164 F. Supp. 3d 33 (District of Columbia, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Furtado Jr. v. Furtado Sr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furtado-jr-v-furtado-sr-dcd-2026.