1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WILLIAM TERRELL SHAW

Plaintiff,

v.

SEMIRA NEGASI, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-2162 (JMC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff William Terrell 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 in 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: he quoted portions of the ADA, id. at 6, noted that he 

experiences the effects of prior strokes, id. at 9, and expressed 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 he 
2

filed his complaint, Shaw also filed a motion for service by the United States Marshalls. 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 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. Shaw’s complaint fails to 

do so. Some of the named 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 misconduct 

violated the ADA. Even construing Shaw’s complaint leniently, 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). The 

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 WL 
3

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) (finding 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. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for U.S. Marshals to serve 

summons as moot; a separate order will follow this opinion.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 29, 2022

Jia M. Cobb

 U.S. District Court Judge