Perez v. Coleman

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 25, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2707
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHANIQUE ROSEANNE NICOLE PEREZ,) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-02707 (UNA) ) ) ALAN COLEMAN et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the

complaint.

Plaintiff sues three named individuals, as well as “MPD,” “MD States Attorney,” “OAG,”

“OIG,” “Kipp Corporation,” Madeira School, and “MA Mahoney.” Compl. Caption. Except for

Madeira School, the defendants’ locations are not pleaded. See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2. In the

cryptically worded complaint, Plaintiff invokes the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (“RICO”) and seeks $2 billion based on unilluminating exhibits. See Compl.,

ECF No. 1 at 4. Under Statement of Claim, Plaintiff writes, without supporting facts, “21 Yr.

RICO Enterprise Child Sexual Exploitation Victim. Trafficking, Obstruction of Justice,

Concealment, Intimidation of Witness-RICO, Retaliation, Etc.” Id.

“RICO makes it ‘unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise

engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or

participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of

racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt[.]’ ” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 216 F. Supp. 3d 146, 153 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), aff’d, 728 F. App’x 12 (D.C.

Cir. 2018) (per curiam). To state a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must allege factually “(1) conduct

(2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Zernik v. U.S. Dep't of

Justice, 630 F. Supp. 2d 24, 27 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Pyramid Secs. Ltd. v. IB Resolution, Inc.,

924 F.2d 1114, 1117 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). “ ‘[P]attern of racketeering activity’ requires” the

commission of at least two predicate racketeering offenses within a ten-year period. 18 U.S.C. §

1961(5); see 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (defining “racketeering activity”). To succeed on a RICO claim,

a plaintiff must “show that a RICO predicate offense was the proximate cause of injury to his or

her business or property.” Cheeks, 728 F. App’x at 13 (citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions do not state a claim under RICO or any other federal law.

See Cheeks, 728 F. App’x at 13 (“generalized allegations” of criminal acts and other wrongdoing

“do not cross the threshold of plausibility”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim

has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”). In an IFP

proceeding, the court must dismiss the case “at any time” it determines, as here, that the complaint

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Consequently, this

case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/___________ JIA M. COBB Date: August 25, 2025 United States District Judge