The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
ADRIAN WENDY )
DEVILLE- NAKDIMEN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-03144 (UNA)
)
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Currently before the court is plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons explained herein, the court
will grant plaintiff’s IFP application and dismiss the complaint.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 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). When 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. D.C., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. D.C., No.
17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017).
The instant complaint falls within this category. Plaintiff, a resident of Atlanta Georgia,
sues former Presidents Reagan and Johnson, as well as unnamed “family + friend + employees.”
From there, no cognizable facts or claims can be discerned. As presented, neither the court nor
defendants can reasonably be expected to identify plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff has also failed to set forth a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction or his
entitlement to any relief. The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and
is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is
available only when a “federal question” is presented, or the parties are of diverse citizenship and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at
least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure
to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff fails to provide any basis for diversity jurisdiction. He is located in Georgia, but
he does not provide addresses for any of the named defendants, and many of the intended
defendants are not even identified by name, see D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1). He merely states that “USA
addresses on file of government USA 1975-2022[.]” It is a “well-established rule” that, for an
action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time the action
is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991). To that end,
“the citizenship of every party to the action must be distinctly alleged [in the complaint] and cannot
be established presumptively or by mere inference.” Meng v. Schwartz, 305 F. Supp. 2d 49, 55
(D.D.C. 2004) (citation omitted). Here, the citizenship of the parties is entirely unclear. And
plaintiff abjectly fails to state any federal question.
For all of these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order
accompanies this memorandum opinion.
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
Date: December 13, 2022 United States District Judge