1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LOUIS-ALEXANDRE NOEL ALBERT 

DALBIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OF SECURITY AND 

INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OF FRANCE 

AND EUROPE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 24-cv-1434 (JMC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 2, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Louis-Alexandre Noel Albert Dalbis filed a civil 

complaint against various Defendants, including the National Gendarmerie (of France), a group of 

unnamed “[p]ublic employees of security and intelligence services” of Europe and France, and an 

individual named Laurant Mauve-Cecile. ECF 1. On July 9, 2024, this Court dismissed his 

complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 

ECF 13; ECF 14. Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint one day later, ECF 22, along with 

various filings in support of his complaint, ECF 18; ECF 19; ECF 20; ECF 21. None of these 

filings remedy the defects of his original complaint. 

The amended complaint appears to rely primarily on “documents containing information 

in relation [to] the complaint,” ECF 22 at 4, which Dalbis filed at about the same time as his 

amended complaint. With the exception of a reduction in his requested damages from five billion 

dollars to five hundred million, he appears to reassert the same claim under the Torture Victim 

Protection Act of 1991 based on an alleged “[c]rime against humanity” that took place “from 

approximately 1996 to 2024.” Compare ECF 22 at 3–4, with ECF 1 at 3–4. Yet none of Dalbis’s 
2

additional documents shed further light on his claim. He has submitted what the Court understands 

to be: his employment record, ECF 18 at 2, documents relevant to his immigration status, ECF 19 

at 3, his high school and college transcripts and diplomas, ECF 20 at 2, and a primary school report 

(which is entirely in French), ECF 21 at 1. Despite the voluminous documentation now before the 

Court, Dalbis has still failed to provide “fair notice” to Defendants as to the basis for his action. 

See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). As such, at this point, the Court 

does not find that further opportunities to amend will save Plaintiff’s claim. In these circumstances, 

“where the claimant cannot possibly win relief,” the Court may dismiss a complaint “sua sponte 

without notice.” Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990). 

Dalbis’s amended complaint is therefore DISMISSED for failure to comply with 

Rule 8(a)(2) for largely the same reasons stated in this Court’s prior opinion. See ECF 13 at 2. That 

is, “even construing the [amended] complaint and accompanying documents liberally, the Court is 

unable to identify what cognizable harm Dalbis has suffered, who caused him that harm, and how 

the law entitles him to any relief.” Id. And as noted in the Court’s prior opinion, because Plaintiff 

failed to file an amended complaint that comports with Rule 8, this action shall be DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. Id. (citing Brown v. WMATA, 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016)). A

separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

SO ORDERED. 

 __________________________

JIA M. COBB

United States District Judge

Date: July 15, 2024