Hines v. Federal Aviation Administration

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 24, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-1734
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DASHON HINES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-1734 (UNA) ) FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No.

1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the

in forma pauperis application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those

applied to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro

se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.

Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a

complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,

and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). It “does not

require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-

unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations

omitted). In addition, Rule 8(d) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and

direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). “Taken together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis

placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669

(D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of

1 the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate

defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff, a resident of Buffalo, New York, alleges the Federal Aviation Administration

(“FAA”) discriminated against him by refusing “to issue credit cards, hire, allow boarding of

aircrafts, and entry to airports due to race and financial income.” Compl. at 4. There simply are

no facts to support plaintiff’s discrimination claim. For starters, there are no factual allegations

to establish that the FAA itself issues credit cards. Nor are there allegations that plaintiff

attempted to enter a specific airport, or board a particular flight, or applied for and was denied

employment. The attachments that accompany the complaint are of little help either. Those that

even relate to the FAA are generic policy documents, which do not illuminate the gravamen of

plaintiff’s injury.

As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule

8(a). The Court, therefore, will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order is issued

separately.

2024.07.24 12:15:10 -04'00' DATE: July 24, 2024 TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge