Petrozzi v. Bowser

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TIMOTHY R. PETROZZI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-2754 (UNA) ) MURIEL BOWSER, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on initial review of the plaintiff’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, as amended, ECF No.

3. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application, dismiss the complaint without prejudice,

and deny the plaintiff’s “Motion and Declaration,” ECF No. 4, without prejudice as moot.

Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those applied

to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro se litigants

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain

a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). It “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) (quotations omitted). The Rule 8

standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can

1 prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of

res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

The complaint refers to matters the plaintiff filed, or attempted to file, in the United States

Court of Federal Claims, see, e.g., Compl. at 1-2, and alleges violations of “Genocidal Articles I-

VII,” several amendments to the United States Constitution, and assorted federal statutes, see id.

at 7. It is largely unintelligible, and equally unintelligible are the plaintiff’s demands for

“Expunging the complete record of [him],” id. at 13, and “Payment of beyond 19200

Duodecillion,” id.

As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a),

as it does not contain a short and plain statement showing the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. There

are far too few cogent factual allegations to make out a plausible legal claim, and no defendant has

proper notice of the claim(s) the plaintiff is bringing.

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: October 22, 2025 DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge