CANNABLISSHOM v. US GOVERNMENT

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION re Dismissal of 1 Complaint: See document for details. Signed by Judge Jia M. Cobb on February 7, 2025. (lcjmc3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SAGE ENDOOM CANNABLISSHOM,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 25-cv-229 (JMC)

v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff “Sage Endoom Cannablisshom” filed a civil complaint against Defendant
United States Government. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES the complaint
for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires civil complaints to include “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” It does not demand
“detailed factual allegations,” but it does require enough factual information “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
These procedural requirements promote fairness in litigation—Rule 8(a) is intended to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. (citing
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Pleadings 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). But even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy these requirements. Plaintiff purports to bring a
medical malpractice claim, but the complaint consists of a single paragraph with allegations that

1

the Court cannot understand. Plaintiff’s complaint begins with allegations of rape of family
members against a person who does not appear to have any connection to the Government and
goes on to make claims about some “fraudulent denial of a tort claim by the VA [(Veterans
Affairs)] office of General Counsel” seemingly related to “mold toxins placed in [their] residence”
and “trademark interference with [their] business,” but it is not clear what any of this means. ECF
1 at 1. Plaintiff also makes allegations regarding VA medical providers in Ohio that Plaintiff claims
“attempted murder” through unspecified prescription practices while “wearing demon masks
around [Plaintiff’s] bed while [Plaintiff was] asleep.” Id. Without any further detail, such
allegations appear to resemble the type of attenuated and “patently insubstantial” claims that this
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain. Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989)). The complaint says nothing about when these
events purportedly occurred. And the Court has reason to suspect that Plaintiff did not file this case
using Plaintiff’s actual name. 1 Further, Plaintiff purports to seek one trillion dollars in damages
for whatever injuries Plaintiff claims to have sustained. Even construing the complaint liberally,
the Court is unable to identify what Plaintiff’s claims are, when the claims occurred, what harm
Plaintiff has suffered, or how Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
Plaintiff’s complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2). The
Court acknowledges that dismissing a case sua sponte is an unusual step, but the Court has the
authority to do so when plaintiffs fail to comply with procedural rules. See, e.g., Brown v. WMATA,
164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016) (dismissing a complaint sua sponte for failing to comply
with Rule 8(a)); Hamrick v. United States, No. 10-cv-857, 2010 WL 3324721, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug.

If the Court’s suspicions are correct, Plaintiff is warned that this Complaint cannot be filed under a pseudonym
without permission from the Court. Any amended complaint must be filed under Plaintiff’s legal name unless Plaintiff
requests permission.
1

2

24, 2010) (same); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–69 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (finding no
abuse of discretion where a district court dismissed a claim without prejudice for failure to comply
with Rule 8(a)).
Given the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court would be justified dismissing this
complaint outright. However, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to refile an amended complaint
that cures the existing deficiencies by March 7, 2025. If Plaintiff does not file an amended
complaint within that timeframe, files an amended complaint that recycles the present complaint
and does not correct the deficiencies the Court has identified, makes frivolous or insubstantial
claims, or otherwise fails to comply with Rule 8, this action may be dismissed with prejudice.
Brown, 164 F. Supp. 3d at 35. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
JIA M. COBB
United States District Judge
Date: February 7, 2025

3