The opinion
FILED
11/30/2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Court for the District of Columbia
HELGA SUAREZ CLARK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 20-3111 (UNA)
)
)
PERU REPUBLIC et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF
No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the in
forma pauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal
pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,
656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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, mount 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). It also assists the Court in determining whether it
has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
1
Plaintiff is a resident of Peru, who has sued the Republic of Peru and Peruvian officials
for sweeping misconduct. The 133-page pleading is neither short nor plain. A complaint, such
as this, “that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and
confusing material will patently fail [Rule 8(a)’s] standard,” as will “a complaint that contains an
untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully
distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments.” Jiggetts v.
District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff'd sub nom. Cooper v. District of
Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). Most importantly, plaintiff’s convoluted allegations do not establish
jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which is the “sole basis for obtaining
jurisdiction over a foreign state in our courts.” Nemariam v. Fed. Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia, 491 F.3d 470, 474 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Consequently, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
_________/s/_______________
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
Date: November 30, 2020 United States District Judge
2