Opinion
Civil Action 24-03050 (UNA)
11-07-2024
MICHAEL BEASLEY, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ANA C. REYES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring immediate dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted).
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But “even a pro se plaintiff must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Hedrick v. FBI, 216 F.Supp.3d 84, 93 (D.D.C. 2016), and must “plead factual matter that permits [the Court] to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., 789 F.3d 146, 150 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).” 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). It “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., sues the “Department of Child Support [E]nforcement” in Washington, D.C. Compl. at 2. He states only that “child support has been deemed unconstitutional by [illegible] Court of Monasota [sic]” and demands damages exceeding $1 million. Id. at 4. Plaintiff's conclusory assertion does not state a claim to relief. Even acknowledging that “when weighing whether a pro se plaintiff has stated a claim, courts must treat technical deficiencies in the complaint . . . leniently and scrutinize[] the entire pleading . . . to determine if any legally cognizable claim can be found,” Spence v. United States Dep't of Veterans Affs., 109 F.4th 531, 538 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (internal quotation omitted), nothing in Plaintiff's pleading even resembles a legally cognizable claim. Because Plaintiff's Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), this case will be dismissed by separate order.