Court Opinion

ID: 9397806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 16:01:01.742094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:27.777062
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT ZIMMERMAN,                                    )
                                                     )
                 Plaintiff,                          )
                                                     )
        v.                                           )       Civil Action No. 23-01316 (UNA)
                                                     )
                                                     )
MARK ZUCKERBERG et al.,                              )
                                                     )
                  Defendants.                        )

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

        This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint With

Jury Trial Demand, Dkt. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2. The Court will

grant the application and dismiss the complaint.1

        Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those applied

to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro se

litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp.

237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) 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). It “does not require

detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-

harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). In addition,

Rule 8(d) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(d)(1). “Taken together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity

1
  Although the complaint lists Uxor Press as a co-plaintiff, an artificial entity cannot proceed in federal
court without licensed counsel, see Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201–07 (1993) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 1654), nor can it proceed in forma pauperis, see id. at 201 (“Four contextual features indicate that
‘person’ in § 1915(a) refers only to individuals . . . .”). Therefore, as indicated in the caption of this opinion,
the sole plaintiff here is Robert Zimmerman.
by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citation

omitted).

          The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted

so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether

the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

The standard also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject

matter.

          Plaintiff has filed a 223-page complaint against Mark Zuckerberg and his company Meta

Platforms, Inc., “for Intentional Violations of Federal and State Laws.” Compl., Dkt. 1 (footer).

The sheer volume and prolixity of the complaint are reason enough to dismiss for failure to provide

adequate notice of a claim        See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and 8(d) (listing minimum pleading

requirements); Ciralsky, 355 F.3d at 669; see also Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D.

408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017) (a complaint that is “rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant

and confusing material will patently fail [Rule 8(a)’s] standard,” as will one containing “an untidy

assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated”) (cleaned up)), aff'd sub nom.

Cooper v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). A

separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

                                                               _____________________
                                                               DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH
Date: May 26, 2023                                             United States District Judge

                                                   2