The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
JOHN MICHAEL HASKEW, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02033 (UNA)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff has filed a pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an Application for Leave
to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The Court grants the IFP Application, and for
the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter without prejudice.
Plaintiff, a resident of Lakeland, Florida, sues the United States and Coca-Cola. See
Compl. at 1. The allegations are cryptic and difficult to follow. Plaintiff focuses largely on the
annual swearing-in ceremony of the midshipmen at the Naval Academy, and he “prays the court
order the President to deliver a commission to each person that says the oath,” because the
midshipmen are considered officers of the United States. See id. at 1–3. He then pivots to a
different topic, alleging that Defendant Coca-Cola refuses to acknowledge that a coin that he
possesses “entitles [him] to one thousand bottles of Coca-Cola from the year 1915.” See id. at 1.
Even if the latter claim could be better understood, it is completely unclear what connection it has,
if any, with his claims regarding the swearing-in ceremony.
First, Federal 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). Here, Plaintiff has presented an amalgamated and
ambiguous Complaint, and as pleaded, it fails to provide adequate notice of a claim to Defendants
or the Court, and has further failed to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Second, Plaintiff has failed to establish standing for his claim regarding the swearing-in
ceremony. Article III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury
to the complaining party and a plaintiff generally must assert their own legal rights and interests
and cannot rest their claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. Moses v. Howard
Univ. Hosp., 606 F.3d 789, 794–95 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Singh v. Carter, 185 F. Supp. 3d 11, 21 n. 4
(D.D.C. 2016). A party has standing for purposes of Article III if he has “(1) suffered an injury in
fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to
be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. at 763 (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.
Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)). Plaintiff does not meet any of these required elements.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case, are dismissed
without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: September 4, 2025 __________/s/_________________
JIA M. COBB
United States District Judge