Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-01364
06-21-2016
Willie R. Griffin, Plaintiff, v. Postal Server et al., Defendants.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 6/28/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
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 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).
Plaintiff purports to sue "the State, and the City of Atlondia [sic] Georgia Postal service and the City of Kalamazoo," Michigan. Compl. at 1. He seeks $60 trillion in damages. The complaint is nearly impossible to follow, especially with regard to the named defendants against whom no cognizable claim has been stated.
A liberal interpretation of the complaint is that after plaintiff gave his mail carrier in Atlanta, Georgia, a card changing his business address to general delivery, he no longer received mail. Plaintiff seems to take issue with an alleged "Postal Service . . . rule that mail can[not] be change[d] from a business to General Delivery," Compl. at 2, but he has not named the United States Postal Service as a defendant. Amending the complaint to add the Postal Service would be a futile exercise because the United States has not consented to be sued for a "claim [for money damages] arising out of the loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." 28 U.S.C. § 2680. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: June 21, 2016
/s/_________
United States District Judge