FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12/16/2020 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Court for the District of Columbia WANDA CEPEDA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03382 (UNA) ) JAMES STURGIS, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court will grant plaintiff’s IFP application and dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and for want of subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action “at any time” the court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction). Plaintiff, who appears to be a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, sues an Assistant United States Attorney, located in McAllen, Texas. The complaint is extremely difficult to follow. The pleading actually consists of two separate but spliced complaints, each containing disparate claims and information, as well as a collection of various exhibits, provided without context. Plaintiff is seemingly aggrieved by a variety of events and circumstances, including, but not limited to: (1) an alleged violent and unlawful arrest at her home; (2) various criminal charges and/or immigration proceedings filed in Texas and Nevada; (3) a potential agreement struck between plaintiff and authorities predicated on her cooperation as a “reporting . . . immigration consultant” in Georgia, New York, and Pennsylvania; (4) a Las Vegas, Nevada real estate and eviction dispute, and; (5) potential exposure to COVID-19 and a somehow-related assault. She also appears to bring these claims on behalf of both herself and another individual, Angel Ruiz Garcia, which she may not do. A pro se litigant can represent only himself or herself in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages for loss of income, defamation, and the “stress of 3 years of reporting.” First, 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 “complaint [] 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 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 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals