Nastri v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 12, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-1085
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ALISSANDRA G. NASTRI, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23-1085 (CKK)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 12, 2023)

For the second time, Plaintiff has filed a largely inscrutable complaint alleging workplace

misconduct by her prior employer, the United States Office of Special Counsel. On December 2,

2021, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s first action for want of prosecution. The

Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that, unlike her original, delineated her claims

for relief and provided sufficient notice of the factual basis for each claim. Plaintiff failed to make

any filing, and Plaintiff’s belated second attempt fares no better than her first. Therefore, the Court

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint here pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8(a).

On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a 158-page complaint against

Defendant’s Henry Kerner, Special Counsel, and the United States Office of Special Counsel

(“OSC”), appearing to allege the same facts as here. Compare generally Compl., ECF No. 1,

Nastri v. Kerner, Civ. A. No. 20-1334 (CKK) (D.D.C.) with Compl. ECF No. 1, Nastri v. United

States, Civ. A. No. 23-1085 (May 22, 2023) and “Priority Mot. for Writ of Mandamus, Etc.[,]”

ECF No. 3 (May 22, 2023). Broadly, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered various adverse

employment actions during her tenure with OSC. At least in part, Plaintiff’s allegations pertained

to purported instances of discrimination and promotional disputes within OSC, as well as alleged

1 acts of retaliation related to the apparent whistleblowing activity of Plaintiff and her husband.

Plaintiff’s complaint, in part by incorporating by reference her prior filings in the first action and

her motion for a writ of mandamus in this action, invokes a number of federal statutes seriatim,

including the Family and Medical Leave Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal

Employees’ Compensation Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act, the Whistleblower

Protection Act, and certain federal regulations. Compl. at 1-2.

Plaintiff’s first complaint was particularly prolix, measuring 158 pages and 380 paragraphs

of unnumbered, confusing, rambling, and repetitive allegations largely untethered from the federal

statutes that may or may not provide a cause of action. Nastri v. Kerner, Civ. A. No. 20-1334

(CKK), 2021 WL 6844256, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2021). The Court afforded Plaintiff an

opportunity to file a more succinct and comprehensible complaint. Id. Yet she failed to do so,

even after the Court granted multiple extensions. Id. Plaintiff having failed to prosecute her prior

case, the Court dismissed the first action without prejudice on December 2, 2021. Id. at 3.

Plaintiff has returned for another try. Yet, here, Plaintiff has traded verbosity for

indefiniteness. The instant complaint totals only eight pages, but it still does not place Defendant

on notice of the basis for her claims, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires. The

complaint here does little more than name a number of federal laws and, in conclusory fashion,

claim boilerplate government misconduct. For example, without tying the allegation to a particular

cause of action, Plaintiff claims without factual basis that “Plaintiff or her immediate family

engaged in protected activity that enjoined related government actors, they, et al, [sic] retaliated

or otherwise unlawfully mistreated the Plaintiff and her family.” Compl. at 4. Even “[t]hreadbare

recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” combined with “mere conclusory statements,” do not

2 satisfy the strictures of Rule 8. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff’s conclusory

statements, without even recitals of the elements of some cause of action, cannot sustain the

complaint. Nor can Plaintiff’s complaint be sustained where the Court cannot determine from tis

fact, like each of Plaintiff’s earlier pleadings, “‘which allegations of fact are intended to support

which claim(s) for relief[,]’” much less which of the named statutes Plaintiff actually intends to be

a particular cause of action. See Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 417 (D.D.C.

2017) (KBJ).

Therefore, the Court must DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint and

DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT Plaintiff’s concomitant [3] Priority Motion for

Writ of Mandamus, Etc.” An appropriate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: June 12, 2023 __/s/__________________________ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge