UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 20-0327 (TJK) 

OMAR ALEJANDRO MEDINA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Omar Alejandro Medina, proceeding pro se, asserts that the United States of America 

owes him “110M” for “[n]egligence” because he “[w]ent to hospital [sic] several times—almost 

died.” ECF No. 1-1 at 2. He brought this action in the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia, and the United States removed it to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). 

ECF Nos. 1–2. For the below reasons, the Court dismisses Medina’s complaint without 

prejudice, sua sponte, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Although pro se plaintiffs are generally held to a less stringent standard, see Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they must still comply with the Court’s procedural rules, “and 

district courts have discretion to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte for noncompliance,” Fontaine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 42 F. Supp. 3d 102, 107 (D.D.C. 

2014). Rule 8(a) states that, at a minimum, a complaint must provide “a short and plain 

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and a “statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” The purpose of the Rule 8 standard is to give fair notice to the 

defendant of the claims being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer and an adequate 
2 

defense, and to determine whether res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 

(D.D.C. 1977). The Court also “shall dismiss [a] case at any time” if it determines that the action 

“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). To state a 

claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter” for that claim to be “plausible,” 

which requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

The entirety of Medina’s threadbare complaint (1) alleges negligence and that he almost 

died in the hospital, (2) recites certain GPS coordinates, and (3) seeks “a quick payment” of 

“110M” “to get these losers off [his] back and [to] stop violating [his] privacy.” ECF No. 1-1 at 

2–4, 7. But it does not say anything about how the United States was negligent or injured him. 

That warrants dismissal. See Schultz v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 739 F. 

App’x 654, 654 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (district court may sua sponte dismiss a “case 

without prejudice on the ground that the complaint did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 8(a)”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

Furthermore, Medina’s complaint suggests no reason why the Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over the case, which—as a court of limited jurisdiction—it “is obliged to address 

. . . sua sponte.” Doe by Fein v. D.C., 93 F.3d 861, 871 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Medina 

seeks money damages for a negligence claim against the United States. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. But 

in general, sovereign immunity bars such suits. See Clark v. Library of Cong., 750 F.2d 89, 103 

(D.C. Cir. 1984); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (“the court shall dismiss the case at any time if 

the court determines that” the action “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 

from such relief”). Although he does not invoke it, Medina may seek to proceed under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671 et seq., which operates as a 
3 

limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity. But even then, claimants must meet 

the jurisdictional prerequisite of filing an administrative complaint with the appropriate agency 

before filing suit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2675(a), 2679(d)(5); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 

809 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“Such a[n administrative] claim is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite 

to a[n FTCA] suit against the United States.”). Medina has not demonstrated that he has 

exhausted his administrative remedies about whatever claim he may have, and therefore the 

Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over his complaint. 

For all these reasons, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice. A separate order 

will issue. 

SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Timothy J. Kelly 

TIMOTHY J. KELLY 

United States District Judge 

Date: February 13, 2020