UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
MICHAEL GALE ESTRADA, )
A Moor, Executor for MICHAEL GALE )
ESTRADA; MICHAEL ESTRADA; )
MICHAEL GALE and any derivative and )
ESTRADAEY ELECTRIC, LLC, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-cv-528 (TSC)
)
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AN )
FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN, et )
al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs “Michael Gale Estrada, a Moor, Executor for Michael Gale Estrada, Michael
Estrada, Michael Gale and any derivative thereof,” along with Estradaey Electric, LLC bring this
action against the Federal Reserve Bank and its Chairman, Jerome Powell in both his official and
individual capacities.
Among other deficiencies, Plaintiffs’ fifty-five-page Complaint contains no numbered
paragraphs, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). More importantly, the legal
basis of Plaintiffs’ complaint is unclear. For example, Plaintiff Estradaey Electric complains,
without any supporting facts, that it was unable to obtain financing due to alleged discrimination.
ECF No. 1, Compl. p. 49. 1 Plaintiffs collectively allege that the Federal Reserve is artificially
1
Plaintiffs did not number the pages in their Complaint. Therefore, page numbers throughout
this Memorandum Opinion refer to those that the court’s electronic filing system assigns.
Page 1 of 3
keeping interest rates low, artificially depressing the price of gold and silver, purchasing junk
bonds, bailing out corporations, and contributing to global warming. Id. pp. 19–21, 36–38, 42.
Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants have “made the ‘wealth gap’ larger by flooding the stock
markets with trillions of dollars of purchases of ‘Corporate Bonds,’ ‘Junk Bonds,’ and ‘Market-
backed securities’ in violation of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913,” and that the Federal
Reserve’s failure to back “reserve notes” with “precious metals such as gold or silver” violates
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution 2 and the Federal Reserve Act of
1913. Id. pp. 18, 20–23, 31, 35, 37–38 50–55.
But Plaintiffs cite no legal authority or provision in the Federal Reserve Act supporting
their claims. Indeed, “[t]he Supreme Court has consistently upheld Congress’ power to choose
coin, note or currency to serve as legal tender.” Linne v. Baker, No. CIV.A. 85-3713, 1986 WL
9502, at *3 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 1986), aff’d, 826 F.2d 129 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see Holloway v.
Netbank, No. 12-2960-STA-TMP, 2014 WL 112029, at *6 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 10, 2014) (noting
that Section 10 of the Constitution acts only to “remove from the states the inherent sovereign
power to declare currency, thus leaving Congress the sole declarant of what constitutes legal
tender”) (quoting L.R. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F. Supp. 890 (N.D. Ind. 1985)). Even if Plaintiffs
had identified alleged violations of specific provisions of the Federal Reserve Act, they have
proffered no facts establishing that they have standing to bring their claims.
Plaintiffs also assert claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress
but fail to proffer supporting facts. Compl. pp. 21–25. They seek damages, as well as an
2
This provision of the Constitution provides that “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance,
or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make
any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex
post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
Page 2 of 3
injunction requiring “member banks” to erase the debt of Americans who earn less than
$250,000. Again, they assert no facts or legal basis supporting their demands for relief. See id.
pp. 55–56.
While complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those
applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, 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) requires that a complaint 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.” The Rule 8(a) requirements
ensure that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a
responsive pleading, prepare 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). “[A] complaint that is
excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and confusing material
does not meet [Rule 8’s] liberal pleading requirement.” O’Diah v. Cordray, No. CV 17-966
(UNA), 2017 WL 2735549, at *1 (D.D.C. June 23, 2017), aff’d, 707 F. App’x 5 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
(quoting T.M. v. District of Columbia, 961 F. Supp. 2d 168, 174 (D.D.C. 2013).
Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to meet the standards set forth in Rule 8(a). Accordingly, the
court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Date: July 13, 2021
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3