Scotto v. A.R.R.

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2057
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LIVIA M. SCOTTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02057 (CJN)

A.R.R. et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, filed by Plaintiffs Livia M. Scotto and Carmela A. Sciabarra, is currently

before the Court on their Applications for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF Nos.

2, 3, and their pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. The Court grants their IFP Applications

and, for the reasons explained below, dismisses this matter without prejudice.

Plaintiffs, who reside in Florida, sue approximately 52 defendants, including various

insurance companies, banks, corporations, schools, hospitals and other medical providers,

localities, and federal agencies. See Compl. at 1–3. The Complaint cites to numerous purported

causes of action and legal authorities but fails to draw a connection between the intended claims

and any given Defendant, or between the Defendants themselves. See id. at 1–4. The allegations

are rambling and largely incomprehensible, alleging recurring crimes, a home invasion, a dog

attack, legal malpractice, assets held in trust, forged records, data breaches, intellectual property,

Scotto’s career as a model, theft of bank funds, toxic gas, debt to a third party, malicious

prosecution, and prior lawsuits. See id. at 3–4. Any relief sought is unclear.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656

F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Here, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8, which

1 requires a pleading to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–79 (2009). Plaintiffs’

allegations are neither short nor plain, and their “confused and rambling narrative of charges and

conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr.

Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

This matter is accordingly dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: October 17, 2025 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge