CLEVELAND v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 1:2023cv01702 - Document 6 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Carl J. Nichols on 07/19/2023. (zcb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLEVELAND v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BITAVIA CLEVELAND, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01702 (UNA) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the action without prejudice. Plaintiff has sued the United States for reasons that are unclear. The complaint refers to abuse by unnamed people, credit problems, property damage, and non-receipt of payment from jobs that she has worked. See Compl. at 1–2. Plaintiff recites the labels of legal claims or concepts, including “Employment Discrimination” and “Social Security,” without any associated factual allegations. Id. at 2. In other filings, Plaintiff refers to terrorism, false advertisement, identity theft, sexual abuse of her children, improper medical care, theft at a homeless shelter, and human trafficking. See Pl.’s Notice, ECF No. 4; Pl.’s Mot. to Expedite, ECF No. 5. When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss a complaint that “fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). To avoid dismissal, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable 1 Dockets.Justia.com inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Because Plaintiff has not pleaded facts supporting a reasonable inference that the United States is liable for any of the misconduct vaguely described in her filings, she has failed to meet this standard. The action will be dismissed without prejudice by separate order, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite is DENIED as moot. DATE: July 19, 2023 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
