Opinion

Able v. State of South Carolina

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Mar 2, 2022
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Trevor N. McFadden
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LYVONNE ABLE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:22-cv-351 (TNM)

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Lyvonne Able filed his Second Amended Complaint on February 22, 2022. See

ECF No. 2. The Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).

Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a “short and plaint statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of Rule 8 is

to give fair notice to defendants of the claims being asserted such that they can prepare a

responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res

judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Pro se litigants like

Able are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520 (1972), but still must comply with Rule 8(a), see Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239

(D.D.C. 1987).

The Complaint in this matter is anything but “short and plain.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Over the course of 29 pages, the Plaintiff references factual background concerning state probate

proceedings; the Book of Genesis; obscure theories of legal status and personhood associated

with the Sovereign Citizen movement; various citations to admiralty law; assorted legal treatises;

the Plaintiff’s current or impending status as a slave to the State of South Carolina; the Plaintiff’s

“Notice of Special Appearance” as a “Sovereign Principal”; incoherent requests for declaratory

judgment against the State of South Carolina; and finally, a prayer for “recoupment.” See

generally ECF No. 2. The pleading is incomprehensible. It entirely fails to put the Defendant on

notice as to the nature of the Defendant’s claim, and therefore fails the most basic requirement of

pleading in federal court.

For these reasons, the Amended Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

2022.03.02

09:50:49 -05'00'

Dated: March 2, 2022 TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.