Terrell v. Bailey

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-0505
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LORI E. TERRELL,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-cv-0505 (JMC)

v.

CHERYL R. BAILEY, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 20, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Lori Terrell filed a civil complaint against

Defendants, a group of government employees and judges of the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia. ECF 1. On April 16, 2024, this Court dismissed her complaint without prejudice for

failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). ECF 2; ECF 3. Plaintiff timely

filed an amended complaint on May 16, 2024, ECF 4, along with other responses to the Court’s

ruling, ECF 5; ECF 6, but none of these filings remedy the defects of her original complaint.

The amended complaint includes many of the same confusing allegations from Plaintiff’s

original complaint regarding, for example, an alleged “absolute deprivation” of rights and

freedoms “orchestrated around a time period of dates . . . having the numeric sequence (‘27’)” that

may relate to the “Pearl Harbor attack.” ECF 4 ¶ 122. The Court also observes that some of the

Defendants in this action are judges of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia who “are

protected by absolute judicial immunity” to the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge their official

acts. Atherton v. D.C. Off. of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 682 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Moreover, this Court’s

review of Plaintiff’s additional filings, which describe a purported “non-receipt” of this Court’s

prior opinion despite also providing the full text of that same ruling, compare ECF 5 ¶ 2, with

1 ECF 6 at 5–7, do not change the result. Plaintiff’s submissions do not shed light on the allegations

in her amended complaint nor do they suggest that the allegations in the amended complaint

support any viable cause of action. At bottom, the Court does not find that further opportunities to

amend will save Plaintiff’s claims. In these circumstances, “where the claimant cannot possibly

win relief,” the Court may dismiss a complaint “sua sponte without notice.” Baker v. Director,

U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

Terrell’s amended complaint is therefore DISMISSED for failure to comply with

Rule 8(a)(2) for largely the same reasons stated in this Court’s prior opinion. See ECF 2 at 2. That

is, “even construing the [amended] complaint liberally, the Court [still] cannot identify what

cognizable harm Terrell has suffered, who caused her that harm, and how the law entitles her to

any relief.” Id. And as noted in the Court’s prior opinion, because Plaintiff failed to file an amended

complaint that comports with Rule 8, this action shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Id.

at 3 (citing Brown v. WMATA, 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016)). A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge

Date: May 22, 2024