UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AROR

- ARK ARK O ’ DIAH ,

Plaintiff ,

v. JOHN G. ROBERTS, et al. ,

Defendant s
. Civil Action No. 2 3

- 653 ( RDM )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff Aror

- Ark Ark O’Diah’s pro se civil complaint. For the reasons provided below, the Court will dismiss the complaint.
A pro se litigant ’ s pleadings are held to less stringent standards than the stan dard applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even

pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v.
Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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 d emand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense
and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano , 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).2

As drafted, Plaintiff’s pro se complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Although the Court cannot discern precisely what Plaintiff allege s, Plaintiff’s 80

- page submission makes reference to a racially motivated conspiracy of some kind involving the more than 90 Defendants, and it accuses Chief Justice John Roberts of failing to prevent such conspiracy. Dkt. 1 at 13

– 14. It alleges that a grea t number of judges are “liars” and that they took actions of some kind “without substantive due process” and suspended
the United States Constitution and that various businesses , including T

- Mobile and Staples, Inc. , in some way enforced the assertedly unc onstitutional orders of the judges. See generally id. at
15

– 30

. Plaintiff asserts 52 claims for relief under the Constitution as well as statutory and
common law and seeks $100,000,000 in damages from each Defendant. See id. at 31

– 80. Although Plaintiff’s complaint is extensive, it offers no intelligible description of the factual basis for Plaintiff’s claims. The conclusory and scattershot factual allegations the complaint contains fail to demonstrate whether or why Plaintiff is entit led to the relief sought. Even construed liberally, Plaintiff’s allegations leave the Court and Defendants in the dark regarding the connection between what facts Plaintiff pleads and the numerous legal violations
Plaintiff alleges . Put simply, Plaintiff has not given Defendants or the Court adequate notice regarding the claims Plaintiff intends to assert, because the complaint lacks “ a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief .” Fed . R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Moreover, much of Plaintiff ’ s complaint appears to seek damages from Chief Justice
Roberts and dozens of other judges for issuing or failing to issue decisions in their judicial capacities. The doc trine of judicial immunity bars such claims. M ireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 9

– 10 (1991) ( describing a long line of Supreme Court precedents that have found “ judge[s] . . .
immune from . . . suit for money dam ages ” ). This doctrine extends to “ all actions taken in the3

judge ’ s official capacity, unless the[] actions are taken in the compl ete absence of all jurisdiction , ” Sindra v. Suda , 98 6 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993) , and th us bar s many of
Plaintiff ’ s claims here. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice , except that all claims seeking damages against ju dges or justices for acts taken
in their judicial capacities are dismissed with prejudice

. The clerk is directed to mail a copy of
this order to Plaintiff at Plaintiff ’ s address of record.
SO ORDERED

.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge

Date: May 22, 2023