Rossmann v. Chase Home Finance LLC

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 29, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-1084
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

]L)N 2 9 20'\7_

UNITEI) STATES l)lsrRlcr CoURT c,,,,k_ us uis:;\@i_s.ta:%i<;\i:j;:;\<;»_\¢a FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA continuum name o

BRUD ROSSMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ` ` ) 12 1®Sl v_ ) Civil Action No. ) CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and

his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.

Notwithstanding plaintiff’ s degree from Harvard LaW School, see Compl. 1111 lO, l6, 24, the complaint is vague, disorganized, and wholly lacking in focus. lt appears that plaintiff s claims arise from his purchase of and foreclosure on real property located in Fairfax County, Virginia, see generally id. m 44-92,1 as well as defendants’ alleged operation of the "Chase Ponzi Scheme," id. 11 2. ln support the latter claim, plaintiff submits an exhibit titled "Select Proof of IRS Findings of a Chase Ponzi Scheme, Other Chase Theft," id., Ex. Sec. 4, comprised of unintelligible handwritten notes, copies of certified mail receipts, and assorted

correspondence. Plaintiff’ s other exhibits are no more helpful in fleshing out his claims.

' Review of the Court’s docket reveals that plaintiff has sued these defendants previously, and that the defendants successfully argued that personal jurisdiction was lacking and that venue in this district was improper. See Rossman v. Chase H0me Finance LLC, No. 10-0977 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2011). Plaintiff is no more successful here in showing that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over these defendants or that venue in this district

is proper.

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerrzer, 404 U.S. 5l9, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 23 7, 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). Plaintiffs complaint fails to meet this minimal pleading standard, and, accordingly, it will be dismissed without prejudice

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

%r/r/le?r/ DATE: //&

United States P§istrict Judge