West v. Mororty

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-1812
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) LEO WEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1: 25-cv-01812 (UNA) ) DR. MORORTY, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and

Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The Court grants

Plaintiff’s IFP Application and, for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter without

prejudice.

At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff lists an address in Washington, D.C., but then

states that he is a resident of Maryland. See Compl. at 1, 3. Similarly, he sues a physician who

appears to work at the VA Medical Center, located in the District, but the Complaint also suggests

that Defendant is located in Maryland. See id. at 2. This information falls short of the requirements

set forth in D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1).

The allegations themselves fare no better. Plaintiff alleges only that he suffered a “false

statement on [a] government document without the writing of the truth.” Compl. at 3, 4. He goes

on to list a series of medical diagnoses, insofar as they can be understood, and he demands $1

million in damages. See id. at 4. 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). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint

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, 678–79 (2009). The Rule 8 standard ensures that

defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive

answer and an adequate defense. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Here, as

presented, neither the Court nor the Defendant can reasonably be expected to identify Plaintiff’s

claims, and the allegations fall well short of establishing the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August 19, 2025 __________/s/_________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge