Court Opinion

ID: 9365074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 00:00:56.144254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.096270
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL L. WAGNER,                                   )
                                                     )
                               Plaintiff,            )
                                                     )
               v.                                    )       Civil Action No. 22-2572 (UNA)
                                                     )
UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL,                     )
                                                     )
                               Defendant.            )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis (ECF No. 3) and for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No.

1) and this civil action without prejudice.

       A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be applied to a

formal pleading drafted by lawyer. 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 demand 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).

                                                 1
       As drafted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in

Rule 8(a). Referring to an article published in a newspaper in 2010, plaintiff contends that the

actions or inaction of a prosecutor in California warrant investigation. See Compl. at 1. There

are no factual allegations regarding the prosecutor’s alleged missteps, however, and the

complaint fails to set forth a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction and to provide a short and plain

statement of a viable legal claim for relief this Court may order. Furthermore, a plaintiff may not

compel a criminal investigation by any law enforcement agency by filing a civil complaint. See

Otero v. U.S. Attorney General, 832 F.2d 141, 141–42 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Jafree v.

Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). “[A]n agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce,

whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's

absolute discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

       Therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: January 19, 2023                                        /s/
                                                              CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                              United States District Judge

                                                  2