# Louis-Alexandre Noel Albert Dalbis v. France

> District Court, District of Columbia · July 23, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10478462

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** July 23, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Jia M. Cobb
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10478462

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LOUIS-ALEXANDRE NOEL ALBERT
DALBIS,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 24-cv-2065 (JMC)
v.

FRANCE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Louis-Alexandre Noel Albert Dalbis brings this suit against the nation of

France. ECF 1. This is not Dalbis’s first lawsuit before this Court. See Dalbis v. Pub. Emps. of Sec.

& Intel. Servs. of Fr. & Eur. (Dalbis I), No. 24-cv-1434 (JMC). In his prior action, Dalbis invoked

the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, alleging that various unnamed French officials had

committed a “crime against humanity” against him “from approximately 1996 to 2024.” Dalbis I,

ECF 1 at 4. On July 15, 2024, this Court dismissed that case with prejudice in light of Dalbis’s

repeated failures to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Dalbis I, ECF 24. One

day later, Dalbis filed the current lawsuit, which is virtually identical to his last one. ECF 1. In

fact, aside from (technically) naming a different Defendant, Dalbis appears to have copied and

pasted the entirety of his current complaint from filings in his prior suit. Compare, e.g., ECF 1 at

6–7, and ECF 1 at 9–16, with Dalbis I, ECF 12 at 133–34, and Dalbis I, ECF 12 at 8–16.

Because Dalbis’s complaint recycles the same confusing and legally inadequate allegations

from his prior lawsuit, the Court DISMISSES his complaint in this case for largely the same

reasons as stated in Dalbis I. That is, “even construing the . . . complaint and accompanying

documents liberally, the Court is unable to identify what cognizable harm Dalbis has suffered, who

1
caused him that harm, and how the law entitles him to any relief.” Dalbis I, ECF 24 at 2. And

while “[o]rdinarily, the remedy for noncompliance with Rule 8(a) is dismissal with leave to

amend,” Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 499 (D.D.C. 1977), the Court concludes that dismissal

WITH PREJUDICE is warranted due to Dalbis’s repeat filing of his prior lawsuit that itself was

dismissed with prejudice.

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________
JIA M. COBB
United States District Judge

Date: July 23, 2024

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10478462. Public record. Not legal advice.