Williams v. Bywater

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 26, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-0113
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CYNTHIA WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-113 (UNA) ) (VIVINT) DAVID BYWATER, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and civil complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons

stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants must comply

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C.

1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

1 Plaintiff purports to bring two claims: breach of contract and violation of the Privacy Act.

The breach of contract presumably occurred when she “received a phone call telling [her that

her] system was being taken out,” yet she did not receive a phone call from Vivint. Compl. at 1.

According to plaintiff, David Bywater is the person who removed the system, and he allegedly

also accepted “Bribes in exchange for excess [sic] to [plaintiff’s] residence.” Id. The Privacy

Act violation presumably occurred when unidentified persons gained access to plaintiff’s

residence, and when “in the middle of the night [she] was spoken to” through a speaker. Id. She

demands an award of $2 billion for the “mental stress” she has experienced. Id.

So few cogent facts are alleged that the named defendant would not have adequate notice

of the legal claims against him. For example, plaintiff alleges breach of a contract and fails to

describe the contract’s terms. And if plaintiff intends to bring a claim under the Privacy Act, see

5 U.S.C. § 552a, the claim would fail because the Act applies only to an agency of the Executive

Branch of the federal government, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, 552a(a)(1).

As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8,

and it will be dismissed. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: February 26, 2024 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge