ADEYINKA v. TEXAS VITAL STATISTICS

Filing 6

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EMMANUEL ADEWALE ADEYINKA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS VITAL STATISTICS
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 24-1020 (UNA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of pro se Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and civil complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons
stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro
se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even 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). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give
fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer,
to

prepare

an

adequate

defense

and

to

determine

whether

judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

1

the

doctrine

of res

Plaintiff represents that, according to his Certificate of Birth, his parents’ race is listed as
“NEGROID.” See Errata (ECF No. 4) at 2. Dozens of pages of the complaint are devoted to topics
related to citizenship and discrimination. See generally Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 4-44. The
complaint ends with a demand that the Texas authorities amend plaintiff’s birth certificate, see id.
at 49, consistent with Texas law, see id. at 46-48, and that the Court award “30.7 million for each
year,” id. at 51, since plaintiff’s birth in 1980. Missing are any factual allegations to establish this
Court’s jurisdiction, however. Plaintiff appears to seek enforcement of Texas law without
explaining whether or by what authority a federal court in the District of Columbia may grant the
relief demanded. Furthermore, the complaint fails to set forth a legitimate basis for monetary
damages.
As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8,
and it will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: May 8, 2024

AMIT P. MEHTA
United States District Judge

2