Smith v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
This text of Smith v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (Smith v. U.S. Department of Agriculture) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) MY’SHEKIA SMITH, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-cv-2306 (TSC) ) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) AGRICULTURE, ) ) ) Defendant. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINON
Pro se Plaintiff My’Shekia Smith brings this action against Defendant United States
Department of Agriculture, alleging an unspecified “personal injury” due to Defendant’s
negligence. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 1. The court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint because it
does not meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Jarrel v.
Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987), and Rule 8(a) requires complaints 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.” The Rule 8 standard ensures
that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a
responsive answer and defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See
Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). A complaint that “contains an untidy
assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished
Page 1 of 3 from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments” will fail Rule 8’s standard.
Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017, aff’d sub nom., Cooper v.
District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). As pleaded,
Plaintiff’s Complaint falls into this category.
Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by Defendant, accrued substantial financial debt
due to student loans, is unhappy with her employment prospects after completing her higher
education, and has experienced “more harm than help” from her education. Complaint at 1. But
she does not cite a single statute and fails to provide fair notice to Defendant of her claim. Her
causes of action, if any, are completely undefined.
To the extent that Plaintiff brings a suit in tort against the Department of Agriculture, she
would generally need to rely on the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). However, under the
FTCA a federal court only acquires jurisdiction over a tort action against a federal agency and its
officers after the plaintiff has exhausted her available administrative remedies by submitting her
tort claim to the agency, which must provide a final written denial of the claim. 28 U.S.C. §
2675(a). Informal complaints do not suffice. See Davis v. United States, 944 F. Supp. 2d 36, 39
(D.D.C. 2013). Further, because the FTCA’s exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional
prerequisite, the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading exhaustion of administrative remedies to
establish the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff has not pleaded
exhaustion of her administrative remedies; consequently, the court is required to dismiss her
claims. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Smith v. Clinton, 886 F.3d 122,
127 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se her Complaint will be dismissed without
prejudice.
Page 2 of 3 Date: September 13, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN
Page 3 of 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Smith v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-us-department-of-agriculture-dcd-2023.