# Tin v. Credit Agricole Cib-Chicago

> District Court, District of Columbia · January 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10788866

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** January 28, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Amir H. Ali
- **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/10788866

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10788866. Public record. Not legal advice.