Zhou v. Deford

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 23, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-0397
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HUIXUAN ZHOU,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 24-397 (TJK) JOSHUA P. DEFORD,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action on February 9, 2024. Because the Complaint

fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), the Court

will dismiss it, sua sponte, and permit her to file an amended complaint.

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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009);

Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defend-

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

and mount an adequate defense. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). And it

helps the Court determine whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Although pleadings

by pro se litigants are generally held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by lawyers,

they must still comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp.

237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). When a plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 8, sua sponte dismissal may

be appropriate. See Shells v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 23-cv-02561 (JMC), 2023 WL 5748568, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 6, 2023) (dismissing sua sponte a pro se plaintiff’s claims where “the lack of accom-

panying factual allegations makes it impossible to determine that claim’s factual basis”); White v.

Markey, No. 20-cv-03316 (UNA), 2020 WL 7481041, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2020) (dismissing

sua sponte a pro se complaint that “fails to set forth allegations with respect to this court’s juris-

diction”).

The Complaint is near-incomprehensible. It consists of disorganized ramblings that fail to

provide a coherent narrative or set of facts. See Jiggetts v. D.C., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C.

2017) (“[A] complaint that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrele-

vant and confusing material will patently fail [Rule 8’s] standard.”) (internal quotations omitted).

Moreover, while it names Joshua P. Deford as the defendant, it does not set forth a discernable

cause of action against him. See Alese v. McDonough, No. 23-cv-2925 (TJK), 2023 WL 9418276,

at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2023) (dismissing complaint that failed to “describe[] the conduct Plaintiff

complains of or even the involvement of Defendant”). Finally, it suggests no reasons why the

Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.1 See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Because the Complaint fails to meet Rule 8’s minimal pleading

standard, the Court will dismiss it and grant Plaintiff leave to address these deficiencies in an

amended complaint.2

Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED. It is further

1 On the Civil Cover Sheet accompanying the Complaint, Plaintiff checked “U.S. Govern- ment Plaintiff” as the basis of jurisdiction, which is plainly incorrect. ECF No. 1-2 at 1. 2 The Complaint includes 253 pages of attachments. Plaintiff is advised that under Local Rule 5.1(e), a complaint shall not include attachments that are “not essential to determination of the action.”

2 ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8(a) by March

22, 2024. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Timothy J. Kelly TIMOTHY J. KELLY United States District Judge Date: February 23, 2024