Perales v. Office of the Clerk

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2644
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-2644 (JMC)

v.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF DELAWARE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Azael Dythian Perales filed suit against the Office of the Clerk of the United

States District Court for the District of Delaware. ECF 1. For the reasons discussed below, the

Court DISMISSES the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a)(2).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires civil complaints to include “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” It does not demand

“detailed factual allegations,” but it does require enough factual information “to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

These procedural requirements promote fairness in litigation—Rule 8(a) is intended to “give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. (citing

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Pleadings filed by pro se litigants are held to less

stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

1 Perales’s complaint does not satisfy these requirements. The complaint lists various

criminal and civil statutes he claims that Defendant is “guilty of,” but does not include any factual

allegations describing what Defendant allegedly did to him. ECF 1 at 1. For example, he claims

alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act, id. at 2, but he never alleges that he requested

records from any agency. Similarly, he describes the basis for liability under the federal

racketeering statute, id. at 3–12 but does not identify any action that Defendant allegedly took in

violation of that statute. Overall, the Court is unable to identify what harm Perales claims he has

suffered, who caused him that harm, or how the law entitles him to any relief. No defendant in

receipt of this complaint would know how to respond to it.

Perales’s complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2). The

Court acknowledges that dismissing a case sua sponte is an unusual step, but the Court has the

authority to do so when plaintiffs fail to comply with procedural rules. See, e.g., Brown v. WMATA,

164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016) (dismissing a complaint sua sponte for failing to comply

with Rule 8(a)); Hamrick v. United States, No. 10-cv-857, 2010 WL 3324721, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug.

24, 2010) (same); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–69 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (finding no

abuse of discretion where a district court dismissed a claim without prejudice for failure to comply

with Rule 8(a)).

The Court will grant Perales leave to file an amended complaint that cures the existing

deficiencies by March 13, 2026. If he does not file an amended complaint by that date, files

another complaint that fails to comply with Rule 8, or submits a complaint that is frivolous on its

face, this action may be dismissed with prejudice. See Brown, 164 F. Supp. 3d at 35. A separate

order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

SO ORDERED.

2 __________________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge

Date: February 11, 2026