1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WILLIAM TERREL L SHAW

Plaintiff,

v. SEMIRA NEGASI , et al. ,

Defendants. Civil Action No. 22

- 2162 (JMC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se P laintiff William Terre l l Shaw filed a civil complaint against Defendants Semira Negasi, Bobbie Jefferson, Matthew Turner and the Bishop of D

. C

. Episcopal Church, alleging unspecified violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (ADA)

. For the reasons discussed i n greater detail below, the Court DISMISSES the complaint , but grants Shaw leave to refile within 30 days an amended complaint that cures the existing deficiencies.
I. Background On July 22, 2022, William Terrell Shaw filed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights by supplementing this Court’s standard form with six pages of typed notes. ECF 1 at 8

- 13. Shaw ’s notes touched on a range of topics : h e quoted portions of the ADA , id. at 6, noted that he experiences the effects of prior strokes, id. at 9, and expre ssed his frustration at the indifference of employees working at Friendship Terrace

. Id. at 9

- 10. At one point , Shaw seemed to allege that employees of Friendship Terrace caused him “delays in completing forms” and ignored him in
other instances of daily life , though Shaw did not name specific employees or describe how the employees delayed him

. Id. at 9

. Shaw sought damages of $5,000,000

. Id. at 7. The same day he2

filed his complaint, Shaw also filed a motion for service by the United States Marshal ls. ECF 3. Defendants have not yet responded to Plaintiff’s complaint.
II. Analysis 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 doe s 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 i n 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 p ro se litigants are held to less stringent standard s 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 C ivil Procedure. Shaw’s complaint fails to do so. Some of the nam ed defendants do not appear anywhere in the complaint’s narrative, and the lack of supporting factual allegations makes it impossible to determine the basis of Shaw’s ADA
claim . Said plainly , Shaw fails to specify who did what to him , or how any alleged mi sconduct violated the ADA

. Even construing Shaw’s complaint l eniently , the Court cannot make out his theory of how Defendants violated the ADA or any other statute

. Shaw’s complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to comply with FRCP 8(a)(2) . T he
Court acknowledges that dismissing a case sua sponte is an unusual step, but courts have done so when plaintiffs fail to comply with procedural rules. See, e.g. , Brown v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority , 164 F. Supp. 3d 33 , 35 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2016) (dismissing a complaint sua sponte for failing to comply with FRCP 8(a)); Hamrick v. United States , No. 10

- 857, 2010 WL3

3324721 , at * 1 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010) (same); see also Ciralsky v. CIA , 355 F.3d 661, 668

– 69 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (fi nding no abuse of discretion where a district court dismissed a claim without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)). The Court grants Shaw leave to refile within 30 days an amended complaint that cures the existing deficiencies. But if Shaw fails to file an amended complaint within that timeframe or files an amended complaint that merely recycles the complaint presently before the Court, it may be dismissed with prejudice. See Brown , 164 F. Supp. 3d at 35

. III. Conclusion Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED , but he is granted leave to refile within 30 days an amended complaint. T he Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for U.S. Marshals to serve

summons as moot ; a separate order will follow this opin ion.

SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 2 9 , 202 2

Jia M. Cobb U.S. District Court Judge