The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DO VAN TIN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 24-2534 (UNA)
)
)
CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB-CHICAGO, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
Memorandum Opinion
Before the Court is Plaintiff Do Van Tin’s pro se complaint and motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Tin seeks a jury trial against Defendant banks in Chicago,
Houston, New York, and California “about stole[n] fraudulent appropriation” of his “privacy paper
documents” and demands “unconditional compensation amounting [to] . . . three thousand billion
United States Dollars.” ECF No. 1 at 3. Tin references a DHL Express “Waybill number” and an
October 13, 2020, “Shipment Date” from Vietnam to “Chair Jerome H. Powell, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System” in Washington, D.C., and seems to allege that
Defendants concealed the appropriation of his “father’s saving deposits at year 1974 in Vietnam
to present.” Id. Tin also describes his lawsuit against an affiliated bank in Vietnam, presumably to
recover his father’s funds. See id. at 6–8.
Although pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), they must
comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239
(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the
grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a). This standard “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than
an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Tin has not pleaded a basis for federal court jurisdiction and alleged a coherent set of facts
to “give the defendants fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Jones
v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Consequently, this case will be
dismissed by separate order.
______________________
AMIR H. ALI
Date: January 28, 2025 United States District Judge
2