Oliver, III v. United States of America

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDDIE V. OLIVER, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04064 (UNA) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

Memorandum Opinion

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons below, the court dismisses this

matter for failure to meet the pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a).

At the outset, the court denies Plaintiff’s IFP application. Parties instituting a civil action

are required to pay the applicable filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), unless granted IFP status under

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Whether to permit or deny an application to proceed IFP is within the sound

discretion of the court. See Van Oliver v. United States, No. 1:25-cv-04075, 2026 WL 715227, at

*1 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2026). An individual need not “be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of

the [IFP] statute,” but a party seeking to proceed IFP should show that they cannot “pay or give

security for the costs and still be able to provide” for “the necessities of life.” McKelton v. Bruno,

428 F.2d 718, 719–20 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (cleaned up). “[C]ourts will generally look to whether the

person is employed, the person’s annual salary, and any other property or assets the person may

possess.” Lin v. District of Columbia, No. 16-cv-645, 2020 WL 7695973, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 28,

2020) (citation omitted). Plaintiff attests that he earns a gross pay of $42,000 and that he possesses billions of dollars in other assets. See ECF No. 2 at 1–2. Although he owes student loan debt and

is responsible for three dependents, these obligations do not exceed his combined earnings and

assets. See id. Accordingly, he has not made the requisite showing to proceed IFP, and his IFP

application is denied.

Next, the court finds that the complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements of

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Rule 8(a) 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). This “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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). This ensures the defendant has “notice of what the claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up).

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to give minimum notice of any cognizable claim or to establish

this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff sues multiple defendants, including federal

agencies, countries, continents, public figures, universities, and the National Football League. See

ECF No. 1 at 1–3. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s “civil right[s]” have been violated with

“extreme assaults and financial disparity” by “Confederate supporters.” Id. at 4. The complaint

further alleges that Plaintiff’s fingerprinting was delayed, which caused him to “get rejected from

Defense Financi[al] Accounting Services.” Id. He appears to seek an “investigation on various

departments that were aware of the treason and perjury” and “a further investigation lead as far

back as 1991.” Id. These vague and conclusory allegations of wrongdoing are insufficient to

provide “notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at

555 (cleaned up); see also 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)

(explaining that “a complaint that contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly

nor concisely stated” does not “comport with the standards of Rule 8”).

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

memorandum opinion.

Date: April 21, 2026 /s/______________________ AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge