Haskew v. United States of America

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) JOHN MICHAEL HASKEW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02033 (UNA) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff has filed a pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an Application for Leave

to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The Court grants the IFP Application, and for

the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of Lakeland, Florida, sues the United States and Coca-Cola. See

Compl. at 1. The allegations are cryptic and difficult to follow. Plaintiff focuses largely on the

annual swearing-in ceremony of the midshipmen at the Naval Academy, and he “prays the court

order the President to deliver a commission to each person that says the oath,” because the

midshipmen are considered officers of the United States. See id. at 1–3. He then pivots to a

different topic, alleging that Defendant Coca-Cola refuses to acknowledge that a coin that he

possesses “entitles [him] to one thousand bottles of Coca-Cola from the year 1915.” See id. at 1.

Even if the latter claim could be better understood, it is completely unclear what connection it has,

if any, with his claims regarding the swearing-in ceremony.

First, 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). Here, Plaintiff has presented an amalgamated and

ambiguous Complaint, and as pleaded, it fails to provide adequate notice of a claim to Defendants

or the Court, and has further failed to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Second, Plaintiff has failed to establish standing for his claim regarding the swearing-in

ceremony. Article III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury

to the complaining party and a plaintiff generally must assert their own legal rights and interests

and cannot rest their claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. Moses v. Howard

Univ. Hosp., 606 F.3d 789, 794–95 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Singh v. Carter, 185 F. Supp. 3d 11, 21 n. 4

(D.D.C. 2016). A party has standing for purposes of Article III if he has “(1) suffered an injury in

fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to

be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. at 763 (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.

Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)). Plaintiff does not meet any of these required elements.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case, are dismissed

without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: September 4, 2025 __________/s/_________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge