SANTIAGO RAMIREZ v. UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, LLC et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/8/2024. (znmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GLORIA MONTOYA SANTIAGO RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

UNITED AIRLINES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 24-00836 (UNA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action, 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
application and dismiss the complaint.
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied
to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still,
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 that
a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction
depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and
a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). It “does not require
detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). 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. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498

(D.D.C. 1977). The standard also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over
the subject matter.
Plaintiff brings this action against United Airlines Holdings, LLC, American Airlines
Holdings, LLC, Air Canada Holdings, LLC, and Hilton Worldwide Holdings, LLC, alleging that
she is owed millions of dollars for reasons not articulated clearly in the complaint. Plaintiff neither
states the basis for federal court jurisdiction, alleges discernible facts to “give the defendants fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74,
79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted), nor demands appropriate relief. Consequently, this
complaint and this civil action will be dismissed without prejudice by separate Order.

DATE: May 8, 2024

AMIT P. MEHTA
United States District Judge

2