Court Opinion

ID: 9839546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 15:02:40.417017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:00.548394
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                              )
MY’SHEKIA SMITH,                              )
                                              )
                                              )
              Plaintiff,                      )
                                              )
      v.                                      )       Civil Action No. 23-cv-2306 (TSC)
                                              )
                                              )
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF                   )
AGRICULTURE,                                  )
                                              )
                                              )
              Defendant.                      )
                                              )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINON

       Pro se Plaintiff My’Shekia Smith brings this action against Defendant United States

Department of Agriculture, alleging an unspecified “personal injury” due to Defendant’s

negligence. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 1. The court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint because it

does not meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

       Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Jarrel v.

Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987), and Rule 8(a) requires complaints to contain “(1) a

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “(2) a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The Rule 8 standard ensures

that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a

responsive answer and defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). A complaint that “contains an untidy

assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished

                                            Page 1 of 3
from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments” will fail Rule 8’s standard.

Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017, aff’d sub nom., Cooper v.

District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). As pleaded,

Plaintiff’s Complaint falls into this category.

       Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by Defendant, accrued substantial financial debt

due to student loans, is unhappy with her employment prospects after completing her higher

education, and has experienced “more harm than help” from her education. Complaint at 1. But

she does not cite a single statute and fails to provide fair notice to Defendant of her claim. Her

causes of action, if any, are completely undefined.

       To the extent that Plaintiff brings a suit in tort against the Department of Agriculture, she

would generally need to rely on the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). However, under the

FTCA a federal court only acquires jurisdiction over a tort action against a federal agency and its

officers after the plaintiff has exhausted her available administrative remedies by submitting her

tort claim to the agency, which must provide a final written denial of the claim. 28 U.S.C. §

2675(a). Informal complaints do not suffice. See Davis v. United States, 944 F. Supp. 2d 36, 39

(D.D.C. 2013). Further, because the FTCA’s exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional

prerequisite, the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading exhaustion of administrative remedies to

establish the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff has not pleaded

exhaustion of her administrative remedies; consequently, the court is required to dismiss her

claims. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Smith v. Clinton, 886 F.3d 122,

127 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

       However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se her Complaint will be dismissed without

prejudice.

                                             Page 2 of 3
Date: September 13, 2023

                            Tanya S. Chutkan
                            TANYA S. CHUTKAN

                           Page 3 of 3