The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ZACHARY FLOWERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01177 (UNA)
v. )
)
AL GOODMAN, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court
grants plaintiff’s IFP application and, for the reasons discussed below, it dismisses the complaint
and this matter, without prejudice.
Plaintiff, who is currently staying at Adam’s Place Emergency Shelter in the District, sues
an attorney, Al Goodman, who appears to be located in Springfield, Massachusetts. See Compl.
at 1. The allegations are spare, at best. Plaintiff contends in a single paragraph that defendant has
withheld settlement monies from him, and that defendant informed plaintiff that he was only
entitled to $10,000, when in fact plaintiff’s insurance company values the settlement at $250,000.
Plaintiff alleges that he has been homeless for five years, ostensibly due to defendant’s
withholding. See id.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v.
Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) 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).
A claim is facially plausible only when the pleaded factual content “allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). “The plausibility
standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that
a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A pleading must offer
more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,”
and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Here, Plaintiff fails to supply any details or context to support a cognizable claim. Indeed,
he does not specify the settlement at issue or its terms, when the alleged settlement occurred or
what it pertained to, or what the terms of the alleged attorney-client relationship were, such that
Goodman retained more than he was entitled to receive. Without such basic facts, neither the
defendant nor this court has clear notice of plaintiff’s claims.
For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies
this memorandum opinion.
__________/s/_____________
Date: May 22, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA
United States District Judge