Court Opinion

ID: 9951613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 15:02:37.332683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:45.969715
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DMITRY KRUGLOV,                               )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )
       v.                                     )         Civil Action No. 23-2305 (UNA)
                                              )
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP                     )
AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE,                      )
                                              )
               Defendant.                     )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF

No. 2) and his pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court GRANTS the application, and for the

reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the case without prejudice.

       Kruglov’s first theory in this complaint fails because he has no cause of action. Plaintiff

alleges he submitted to defendant an Application for Travel Document along with an application

fee, a request to expedite the application, and a request to waive the biometrics fee. See Compl. at

1; Pl. Aff. (ECF No. 1-1) at 1. He states defendant advised that it “already has his biometric data,

so Plaintiff doesn’t have to go to biometric appointment, but if biometric fee was already paid, it

will not be refunded.” Pl. Aff. at 1. By refusing to process his application without a biometric fee

notwithstanding his waiver request, and by demanding a biometric fee when defendant already

had his biometric data, plaintiff alleges, defendant engaged in a scheme to defraud in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1341. See Compl. at 2.

       Because there is no private right of action under the cited criminal statute, Plaintiff’s First

Cause of Action must be dismissed. See Short v. Hook Sun Eu, No. 1:20-cv-02425, 2020 WL

                                                  1
5946070, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2020); Rodriguez v. Shulman, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2012),;

Wiggins v. Philip Morris, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 458, 466 (D.D.C. 1994).

       Plaintiff’s second and third theories are far too vague. 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). Plaintiff’s complaint does not meet that standard, because it, among other things, fails to

explain what “policies, practices, and customs” or failures in supervision lead to his alleged

mistreatment.

       An Order is issued separately.

DATE: March 17, 2024
                                                             CARL J. NICHOLS
                                                             United States District Judge

                                                2