FILED
8/4/2021
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Court for the District of Columbia
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
FRANKLIN C. SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-1871 (UNA)
)
U.S. DEPUTY MARSHAL TIBBEF, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his
civil complaint. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s case is dismissed.
While 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),
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 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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8 ensures that defendants receive
fair notice of any asserted claims, so they can determine whether the doctrine of res
judicata applies, as well as prepare a responsive answer and adequate defense. Brown v.
Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
Plaintiff alleges that he contacted a Deputy United States Marshal in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, who agreed to mail legal documents to Plaintiff, but instead intentionally deprived
Plaintiff of those documents by causing Plaintiff’s allegedly unlawful arrest in Jacksonville,
Florida. He brings this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against that Deputy United States Marshal and his unidentified
supervisors, and he demands an award of $500,000,000.
As drafted, this complaint fails to meet Rule 8(a)’s minimal pleading standard. There are
far too few factual allegations to support a Bivens claim. Sweeping assertions of misuse and
abuse of legal process do not suffice, and, insofar as Plaintiff demands compensation for injuries
sustained during his arrest, he fails to allege whether or how the named Defendants—who did
not arrest him—would be liable.
The Court will thus grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but will
dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: August 4, 2021
CARL J. NICHOLS
United States District Judge