FOURSTAR v. GARDEN CITY GROUP, INC. et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/17/2021. (zsb)

Case 1:18-cv-00966-UNA Document 33 Filed 08/17/21 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARDEN CITY GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
AUG 17 2021

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00966 (UNA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a prisoner
currently incarcerated at the Englewood Federal Correctional Facility, located in Littleton,
Colorado. See Second Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl. II”), ECF No. 2, at 1. He initiated this
matter on April 24, 2018. See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1. On June 14, 2018, the court noted
that another matter filed by plaintiff, Misc. No. 15-76, had been administratively closed, and
therefore, plaintiff was granted an extension and provided with an opportunity to file an amended
complaint in this matter in an effort to consolidate and clarify his intended claims. See Order, ECF
No. 5.
By March 29, 2019, no amended complaint had been filed and the deadline had longelapsed, therefore, the case was dismissed without prejudice. See Ord., ECF No. 9. On May 3,
2019, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen, ECF No. 10, which was granted on May 7, 2019, ECF No.
11. Plaintiff was again provided 45 days to file a proper amended complaint. See id.
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, ECF No. 14, on July 1, 2019. On August 19,
2019, the court reviewed the pleading, and found several noted deficiencies, including plaintiff’s
incompliance with Federal Rule 8 and his misplaced intention to bring this matter as a class-action.

Case 1:18-cv-00966-UNA Document 33 Filed 08/17/21 Page 2 of 4

See Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 17, and Order, ECF No. 18. The court dismissed the first
amended complaint and provided plaintiff with another opportunity to file an amended pleading
within 30 days. See id. Over the course of the next two years, plaintiff filed, and/or attempted to
file, a flurry of motions, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 12, 19, 21, 22, 25, and was granted additional
extensions to file an amended pleading, see ECF Nos. 26, 28, 31, and Apr. 21, 2021 Minute Order.
On July 26, 2021, plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint. He has failed, however,
to correct the noted deficiencies, despite multiple opportunities to do so.
The second amended complaint lists 17 myriad defendants, approximately half of which
are unidentified. See Am. Compl. II at 1, 3–7. The Local Rules of this Court state that a plaintiff
“filing pro se in forma pauperis must provide in the [complaint’s] caption the name and full
residence address or official address of each party.” LCvR 5.1(c)(1). He then broadly alleges that
defendants have interfered with his rights under several constitutional amendments and treaties.
See Am. Compl. II at 1, 8.
Plaintiff alleges that unspecified defendants have conspired against him to commit fraud
resulting in an unfavorable outcome rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit. See id. at 8. He then incongruently alleges that some of the defendants
“intentionally and willfully conspired to conceal fraud in the administration of the Moderna
vaccine, and DTP vaccine, causing Plaintiff to suffer severe physical pain and mental anguish to
Fourstar[.]” Id. Next, he alleges that some of the defendants “willfully conspired to conceal fraud
with unknown Fort Peck Community College Financial Aid Administration – for to deny Cobell
Scholarship in abuse of discretion[.]” Id. Finally, he vaguely challenges indefinite determinations
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and of the Social Security Administration.
See id. at 9. It is unclear how these allegations or any of the defendants relate to one another,

Case 1:18-cv-00966-UNA Document 33 Filed 08/17/21 Page 3 of 4

aside from plaintiff’s belief in a wide-scale and overarching conspiracy against him. He demands
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and once again, asks the court to designate him as a
class-action representative. Id. at 8. As to the latter, the court reiterates once again that a pro se
litigant can represent only himself or herself in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Georgiades
v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Though plaintiff has already been notified, the court again notes that 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, 67879 (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 “complaint [] 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 second amended
complaint falls within this category. And the claims as pled, fail to provide any notice of a claim
or any basis for either federal jurisdiction, venue in the District, or personal jurisdiction over many
of the defendants.
Furthermore, this court generally lacks subject matter jurisdiction to intervene in the
determinations of other federal courts. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Panko v.
Rodak, 606 F. 2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979) (“[I]t it seems axiomatic that a lower court may not

Case 1:18-cv-00966-UNA Document 33 Filed 08/17/21 Page 4 of 4

order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an action.”), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1081
(1980); United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (stating that federal district
courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise
appellate mandamus over other courts”) (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C.
1986)); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994) (applying District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)), aff’d, No. 94-5079, 1994 WL 474995 (D.C. Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995).
For all of these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order
accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: August 17, 2021

/s/______________________
EMMET G. SULLIVAN
United States District Judge