Opinion
Civil Action 23-02449 (UNA)
09-22-2023
DANNY JOE HIRSCHFIELD I, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the case 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). Still, 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). 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 is a District of Columbia resident who has sued the federal government. In the one-page complaint, Plaintiff alleges no discernible facts and demands no relief. He mentions several federal laws, most notably 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which “permits suit against a ‘person' acting under color of State or District of Columbia law.” Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 2005). By its terms, section 1983 does not apply to the federal government. See id. at 1104-05. Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.