UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA



### MUHAMMAD SAI PHIPPS , Plaintiff ,

v. MASJIDS, MOSQUES , et al.,
Defendant s

. Case No. 21

- cv - 2982 ( CRC )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff , proceeding pro se , has filed a complaint and motion to appoint counsel. ECF Nos. 3, 7. 1 The court will dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

. And it will deny the pending motion to appoint counsel as moot. Although not held to the same stringent standards as are seasoned lawyers, p ro se litigants must still comply with the Fede ral Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires pleadings to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and pla in statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)

. The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defe nse. Brown v. Califano , 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C.

1 The Court notes that Mr. Phipps filed a complaint, ECF No. 1, an amended complaint, ECF No. 7, and four “errata , ” which include additional “ evidence ” and two copies of his “complete complaint,” ECF Nos. 8

- 11. The Court did not grant Phipps leave to file a second or third amended complaint, and therefore only considers the first. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Even if the Court were to consider Phipps’s “corrected” pleading s , it would not change the Court’s decision, as these documents are all largely the same. See ECF Nos. 7, 10, 11.2 1977). A pleading “that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and confusing material will patently fail [Rule 8(a)’s] standard.” Jiggetts v. D.C. , 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 201 7) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. Phipps’s pleading is “rambling and largely incomprehensible.” Powers v. U.S. Dep ’ t of

Just. , 646 F. Supp. 2d 153, 155 (D.D.C. 2009). The complaint lists as defendants “Mosques, Masjids” in all 50 states of America, without naming any organization or person specifically

. The complaint appears to take issue with Zakat

— the Islamic practice of giving a percent age of one’s income to charity

— b ut does not explain what Phipps thinks i s wrong with the practice or
what relief he seeks . And although Phipps’s complaint invokes federal question jurisdiction, he

identifies no federal statute, treaty, or provision of the United States Constitution as a basis for his legal claim. Nor does he allege any violation of state law that th e Court cou ld hea r in diversity.

The complaint, therefore, fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)

and is dismissed without prejudice. Ciralsky v. CIA , 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ( “Rule 41(b) authorizes the court to dismiss either a claim or an action because of the plaintiff's failure to comply with the Federal Rules.”). A separate order will follow.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge

Date: February 2 , 2022