Gilliard v. Bb&t Bank

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2655
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RASHEEM GILLIARD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02655 (UNA) ) BB&T BANK, et al, ) ) Defendants. )

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 App.”).

For the reasons discussed below, it dismisses the complaint, and this matter, without prejudice.

At the outset, the Court denies Plaintiff’s IFP Application. Whether to permit or deny an

application to proceed IFP is within the sound discretion of the Court. See Prows v. Kastner, 842

F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 941 (1988); Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Plaintiff attests that he earns “21 million dollars . . .

per second,” that he has also receives a portion of an inheritance bi-weekly, see IFP App. at 1, and

that he possesses numerous stocks, estates, and real property, see id. at 2. He has thus failed to

demonstrate that he cannot “pay or give security for the costs” of this case due to poverty. See

McKelton v. Bruno, 428 F.2d 718, 719–20 (D.C. Cir. 1970).

Plaintiff’s Complaint fares no better. Plaintiff, a resident of the District, who holds himself

out as a U.S. and U.K. diplomat and King George VI, see id. at 1–3, 5, sues BB&T Bank, South

Carolina Federal Court Union, First Federal Bank, and Wells Fargo, see id. at 2–3. The allegations

are rambling and difficult to follow, seemingly rooted in Plaintiff’s belief that Defendants, and

others, have “stalked” him for his “fortune,” and obscured trillions of dollars of his diplomatic proceeds and railroad inheritance by changing his bank account identifiers. See id. at 4. He alleges

that “during the period of conflict and present [his] accounts flash off and on. Later disappeared.

Several proceeds are deposited in the capital accounts/and custodian accounts. In addition several

properties were stolen by several banks.” Id. at 3–4. He contends that these events have caused

him financial harm. See id. at 4. No additional context or cognizable facts are provided. The

relief sought, if any, is unclear.

Federal 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). Notably, “[a] confused and rambling narrative of

charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort

Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (cleaned up). And when a pleading

“contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor

meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments [,]” it

also fails to fulfill the requirements of Rule 8. See Jiggetts v. D.C., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C.

2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. D.C., No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017).

The instant Complaint falls squarely within this category. Plaintiff presents broad

conclusory statements within a mess of tangled assertions, failing to provide Defendants or the

Court with adequate notice of a viable claim. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without

prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: November 14, 2025 United States District Judge