DEVILLE- NAKDIMEN v. RONALD, No. 1:2022cv03144 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/13/2022. (zmrl)

Download PDF

DEVILLE- NAKDIMEN v. RONALD Doc. 3 Case 1:22-cv-03144-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ADRIAN WENDY ) DEVILLE- NAKDIMEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-03144 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION Currently before the court is plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons explained herein, the court will grant plaintiff’s IFP application and dismiss the complaint. Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. 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). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). When a pleading “contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments[,]” it does not fulfill the requirements of Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-03144-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/13/22 Page 2 of 3 Rule 8. Jiggetts v. D.C., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. D.C., No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). The instant complaint falls within this category. Plaintiff, a resident of Atlanta Georgia, sues former Presidents Reagan and Johnson, as well as unnamed “family + friend + employees.” From there, no cognizable facts or claims can be discerned. As presented, neither the court nor defendants can reasonably be expected to identify plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff has also failed to set forth a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction or his entitlement to any relief. The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff fails to provide any basis for diversity jurisdiction. He is located in Georgia, but he does not provide addresses for any of the named defendants, and many of the intended defendants are not even identified by name, see D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1). He merely states that “USA addresses on file of government USA 1975-2022[.]” It is a “well-established rule” that, for an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time the action is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991). To that end, “the citizenship of every party to the action must be distinctly alleged [in the complaint] and cannot be established presumptively or by mere inference.” Meng v. Schwartz, 305 F. Supp. 2d 49, 55 (D.D.C. 2004) (citation omitted). Here, the citizenship of the parties is entirely unclear. And plaintiff abjectly fails to state any federal question. Case 1:22-cv-03144-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/13/22 Page 3 of 3 For all of these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. Date: December 13, 2022 AMY BERMAN JACKSON United States District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.