Court Opinion

ID: 9391265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 18:00:57.262317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:40.432273
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PAUL MAAS RISENHOOVER,                         )
                                               )
               Plaintiffs                      )
                                               )
       v.                                      )      Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01090 (UNA)
                                               )
MIGUEL ANGEL CARDONA,                          )
                                               )
                Defendant.                     )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No.

1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court will grant the IFP

application, and it will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for the reasons explained below.

       Plaintiff, a resident of Taiwan, sues the United States Secretary of Education. The rambling

prolix complaint totals 85 pages, and is supported by 360 pages of supplements, ECF Nos. 4–6,

all of which were filed without the court’s leave. The complaint and it supplements, taken together

or separately, are mostly incomprehensible. The allegations are vague, amalgamated, and

confused, and the pleading vacillates between myriad unrelated topics, including, but not limited

to plaintiff’s: pursuit of transcript copies from the University of Oklahoma; demand that all of his

student loans should be declared “null and void;” work as a translator for the “United States

Military Government Formosa, or its delegates, or subordinate entities;”                  interest in

“monetize[ing]” certain “words, including by lease to Google, META, Microsoft, ChatGPT,

OpenAI, IBM, Hon Hai, FoxConn, TSMC, and any legal entity or person, including those created

or to be created by Plaintiff and his spouse jointly;” purported entitlement to a “right to consortium

with Aaron Reuben Ya‐lun Liang Risenhoover, at Tainan, Formosa island, and that the Court shall

appoint appropriate TSA or USMS or airport personnel to aid and assist same to fly from Dallas
or OKC to Kaohsiung;” interest in “receiv[ing] his son at the arrival gate in the Airport in like

manner to diplomatic reception;” purported possession of “patent rights” and “trade secrets;”

demand for “an explanation of Plaintiff and his minor daughter passport’s Special Notation field

and the page it references;” and extended family and personal health history.

        The complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

which 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v.

CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive

fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D.

497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). When a pleading “contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither

plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp

harangues and personal comments [,]” it does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8. Jiggetts v.

D.C., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. D.C., No. 17-7021, 2017 WL

5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). “A confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions

. . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F.

Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

        The instant complaint falls squarely into this category. Neither the court nor the defendant

can reasonably be expected to identify plaintiff’s claims, and the complaint also fails to set forth

allegations with respect to this court’s subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s entitlement to

relief, if any.
      For all of these reasons, the complaint, and this case, are dismissed without prejudice. The

pending motion for CM/ECF password, ECF No. 3, is denied as moot.              A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: May 1, 2023

                                            Tanya S. Chutkan
                                            TANYA S. CHUTKAN
                                            United States District Judge