CHEN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/22/2024. (znmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY CHEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01032 (UNA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court
grants plaintiff’s IFP application and, for the reasons discussed below, it dismisses the complaint
and this matter, without prejudice.
Plaintiff, who resides in the District of Columbia, sues the District of Columbia, the State
of California, and the State of Maryland. See Compl. at 1–2. The complaint is far from a model
of clarity. Plaintiff broadly alleges that, “from 2012 to current, plaintiff sued defendants court by
court accusing intentional harm, persecution, create grievance, intentional degrade, insult,
vandalism, civil rights violation (housing and employment), discrimination, properties damages
and losses, health damages, life damages, failure to implement law, miscarry justice, failure to pay
default judgment etc.” Id. at 4. No other details, context, or information is provided, apart from
an unexplained exhibit, ECF No. 1-1, see D.C. LCvR 5.1(e), namely, a barring order filled out by
plaintiff, relating to real property located in California. Plaintiff seeks trillions in damages,
assorted equitable relief, and asks that this court initiate criminal proceedings against the
defendants. See Compl. at 4.

First, Federal Rule 8(a) 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). “A confused and
rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of
Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). The instant complaint falls squarely within this category. As
presented, neither the court nor defendant can reasonably be expected to identify plaintiff’s claims,
or any basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the complaint paragraphs are
conflated and are not limited “to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
Second, even if plaintiff’s intended claims could be understood, this court has no authority
to compel the government to prosecute a criminal case. See Shoshone–Bannock Tribes v. Reno,
56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Cox v. Sec'y of Labor, 739 F.
Supp. 28, 30 (D.D.C. 1990) (citing cases). The decision of whether or not to prosecute, and for
what offense, rests solely with the government. See, e.g., Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357,
364 (1978). “[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable

interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614,
619 (1973); see also Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Powell v.
Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234–35 (D.C. Cir. 1965); Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 227 (4th
Cir. 1988); Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17, 22 (D.D.C. 2012). Nor may plaintiff compel a
criminal investigation by any law enforcement agency by filing a complaint with this court. See
Otero v. U.S. Attorney General, 832 F.2d 141, 141–42 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Jafree v. Barber,
689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). “[A]n agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether
through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute
discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).
For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies
this memorandum opinion.
Date: May 22, 2024

__________/s/_____________
AMIT P. MEHTA
United States District Judge