“we do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”
How later courts described this case
- “we do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HVISHI OPALUKSIEXREL G )
HOUSEY-NEVILLE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02393 (UNA)
v. )
)
)
THE UNITED STATES, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is currently before the Court on consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Renewed Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”),
ECF No. 4, filed in response to the Court’s Order, ECF No. 3, directing same. Upon review, the
Court grants Plaintiff’s Renewed IFP Application, and for the reasons explained below, it
dismisses this matter without prejudice.
Plaintiff, a resident of Louisiana, sues the United States, “the Department of Treasury
Punishment,” the Department of Justice, and the State of Louisiana. See Compl. at 6–7. The
Complaint is difficult to discern, consisting largely of a bare recitation of federal statues––largely
criminal statutes that generally not provide a private right of action, see Prunte v. Universal Music
Group, 484 F. Supp. 2d 32, 42 (D.D.C. 2007)––treatises, and tribal laws, see Compl. at 7–10. The
allegations amalgamate vague references to Defendants’ alleged conspiracy to commit, and then
their refusal to compensate Plaintiff for, “human rights abuses,” “genocide,” and corruption,
although no details or context is provided for any such alleged wrongdoing, or how Plaintiff was
damaged from same. See id. at 7, 9. Plaintiff demands equitable relief and over $18 million in
damages. See id. at 9–10.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, see Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.
Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987), and here, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a pleading 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).
Plaintiff’s allegations cannot be described as clear and direct, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1),
and the paragraphs are not limited to a single set of circumstances, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). When,
as here, a pleading “contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely
stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal
comments [,]” it does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8. Jiggetts v. Dist. of Columbia, 319
F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017
WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). Put differently, “[a] confused and rambling narrative of
charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort
Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint falls squarely into this category, failing to provide the Court or
Defendants with adequate notice of a claim, and falling short of establishing the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (“we do not require
heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face”); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (2009) (“Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”).
Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: April 14, 2026 ___________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge