Rowland v. United States Superior Court

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 1, 2013
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2013-1182
• Status: Published

Opinion

uNITED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT § L E D FoR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA AUG - l 2£?3

DAVONTA l\/IELVIN ROWLAND, ) Cierk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy

) Courts for the District of Colurnbia Plaintiff, ) )

v. § Civil Action No. / l UNITED STATES SUPERIOR COURT, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the

complaint.

According to the plaintiff, she handed over her identification card upon entry to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on July 5, 2013. See Compl. She alleges that the defendant is "thereby ‘GUILTY’ of . . . ‘LIBEL and SLANDER’ and ‘Defarnation,"’ as well as violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Ia'. (emphasis in original). She demands "six billion dollars in damages, interests and costs,

malpractice, without due process of law[.]" Id.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain "‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘ give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]"’ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

Further, a complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face."’ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although a pro se complaint is "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Erz'ckson v. Pardus, 55l U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), it too, "must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct,"’ Atherlon v. District of Columbz`a O]j‘ice of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79). As drafted, the complaint fails to meet these goals. The complaint fails to set forth sufficient factual allegations to support a claim that showing an identification card to court staff amounts to a violation of constitutionally protected

rights or defamation. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

@Ce,/\ HUC/L_.,

United States District Judge

DATE: 7 f