Housey-Neville v. the United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 14, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2393
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HVISHI OPALUKSIEXREL G ) HOUSEY-NEVILLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02393 (UNA) v. ) ) ) THE UNITED STATES, 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 Renewed Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”),

ECF No. 4, filed in response to the Court’s Order, ECF No. 3, directing same. Upon review, the

Court grants Plaintiff’s Renewed IFP Application, and for the reasons explained below, it

dismisses this matter without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of Louisiana, sues the United States, “the Department of Treasury

Punishment,” the Department of Justice, and the State of Louisiana. See Compl. at 6–7. The

Complaint is difficult to discern, consisting largely of a bare recitation of federal statues––largely

criminal statutes that generally not provide a private right of action, see Prunte v. Universal Music

Group, 484 F. Supp. 2d 32, 42 (D.D.C. 2007)––treatises, and tribal laws, see Compl. at 7–10. The

allegations amalgamate vague references to Defendants’ alleged conspiracy to commit, and then

their refusal to compensate Plaintiff for, “human rights abuses,” “genocide,” and corruption,

although no details or context is provided for any such alleged wrongdoing, or how Plaintiff was damaged from same. See id. at 7, 9. Plaintiff demands equitable relief and over $18 million in

damages. See id. at 9–10.

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

Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987), and here, the Complaint fails 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).

Plaintiff’s allegations cannot be described as clear and direct, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1),

and the paragraphs are not limited to a single set of circumstances, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). When,

as here, 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 does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8. Jiggetts v. Dist. of Columbia, 319

F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017

WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). Put differently, “[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) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint falls squarely into this category, failing to provide the Court or

Defendants with adequate notice of a claim, and falling short of establishing the Court’s subject

matter jurisdiction. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (“we do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible

on its face”); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (2009) (“Determining whether a complaint states a

plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to

draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”).

Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: April 14, 2026 ___________/s/____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge