1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WILLIE SHELLS, Plaintiff,

v. WAL

- MART, INC. , Defendant. Civil Action No. 23- cv -02561- JMC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se P laintiff Willie Shells filed a civil complaint against Defendant Wal

- Mart, Inc. , alleging claims related to an uns pecified “decree” that Shells would receive “half of all [Wal

Mart ’s ] stores [sic] fina n ce s ” from unspecified “owners .” See ECF 1

- 2 at 1 1–12. For the reasons discussed in greater detail below, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice.
I. Background On July 14, 2023, Wille Shells filed a complaint with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by completing that C ourt’s standard for m. ECF 1

- 2 at 1 1–12. Shells alleges that he was “decree[d] h alf of all [Wal

- Mart’s] stores [sic] finances by the owners” and that he would “like to get [his] money [sic] through court.” Id. Shells checked fifteen boxes on the Superior Court’s complaint form, and would apparently like to assert claims for: civil asset forfeiture (currency), civil asset forfeiture (other), assault/battery, conversion, libel/slander/defamation, personal injury, and general civil claims concerning accounting, deceit (misrepresentation), fraud, legal malpractice, writ of replevin, and general civil - other. Id. at 13. He also checked the boxes for statutory claims concerning the Freedom of Information Act, Consumer Protection Act, and2 exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Id. Shells issued a summons to Defendant, which Defendant acknowledged receipt of on August 11 , 2023. Id. at 1. On September 1, 2023, Defendant removed this case to this Court pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) and 1446, ECF 1, and filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, including that the Complaint fails to conform to Rule 8’s requirements.
ECF 3. Among other things, Defendant argues that it do es not understand the basis for Shells’ claim because the Complaint does not provide it with any information.
II. Analysis The Court finds it unnecessary to direct Shells to respond Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or require further briefing from Defendant because the Court has authority to dismiss this matter sua sponte for failure to comply with Rule 8. Federal Rule of Civil P rocedure 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 r ight 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 grou nds upon which it rests.” Id. (citing Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Pleadings filed by p ro se litigants are held to less stringent standard s than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (19 72). But even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of C ivil Procedure. Shell s ’ C omplaint fails to do so. The Complaint presents a one

- sentence allegation that suggest s Shell s may have intended to bring some kind of breach of contract claim, ECF 1

- 2 at 11, but the lack of accompanying factual allegations makes it impossible to determine that claim’s factual basis. The naked and seemingly3 unrelated claims asserted through the check boxes on the Superior Court’s complaint form further confuse th e matter

. Id. at 13. Shell s does not specify, for example, who assaulted or battered him, or why his claim concerns the Consumer Protection Act or Freedom of Information Act. Id. Even construing S hell s ’ complaint liberally, the Court cannot make out his theory of how Defendant violated any statute, committed any tort, or engaged in any conduct that would entitle Shell s to
recovery. Shell s ’ C omplaint 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 the Court has the authority to do so when plaintiffs f ail to comply with procedural r ules. 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 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)). A lthough Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that requiring Shells to respond to Defendant’s legal claims concerning personal jurisdiction and other matters when the Complaint is so deficient is pointless. If Shells believes that he has a viable claim against Wal

- M art, Shells is free to refile a Complaint that provides more information about the reason he is suing.
III. Conclusion Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 6 , 20234 Jia M. Cobb U.S. District Court Judge