Court Opinion

ID: 9387618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 17:01:20.028418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:14.830830
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHARLENE COLLINS LEE,                          )
                                               )
                Plaintiff,                     )
                                               )
        v.                                     )      Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00194 (UNA)
                                               )
U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT                        )
LEGISLATIVE,                                   )
                                               )
                 Defendant.                    )

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

        This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s complaint (“Compl.”), ECF

No. 1, application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons

explained, the court will grant the IFP application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

        Plaintiff, a resident of Rockville, Maryland, sues United States Representative Jamie

Raskin––who plaintiff also refers to as “U.S. Federal Government Legislative”––also located in

Rockville, Maryland. See Compl. at 1–2. Plaintiff attempts to bring this suit under the Freedom

of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and in accordance with her “right of assembly,”

however, the facts presented fail to state a colorable claim under either authority, and the complaint

mostly consists of non-sequiturs. See id. at 3–5. She alleges that “defendant has failed to enact

legislation in committee format specifically to bring about the finding of this cash held in 2004’s

end from JP Morgan/Chase Bank and Bank One’s merger.” Id. at 4. She maintains that she “would

like not to be used as misled by the Congressmen and cash search independent of [her],” and that

she “would like a thorough search of all federal areas holding money using [her] name . . . [and]

social security number.” Id. at 5. As far as it can be understood, she demands more than 700

billion dollars. See id. at 4.
       Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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

“complaint [] 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).

The instant complaint falls within this category.

       Moreover, plaintiff has failed to establish this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The

subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a

“federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts

that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such

facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

       Plaintiff cites to the FOIA, but that statute authorizes suit only against federal agencies, see

5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1), 552(a), and does not create a right of action against individuals, see Prison

Legal News v. Lappin, 436 F. Supp. 2d 17, 21 (D.D.C. 2006) (collecting cases); United States

Dep't of Navy, 732 F. Supp. 240, 241 (D.D.C. 1990) (same). Plaintiff has not sued a federal agency
in this matter. See id. Furthermore, FOIA jurisdiction extends to claims arising from an agency's

improper withholding of records requested in accordance with agency rules. See 5 U.S.C. §§

552(a)(3)(A), (4)(B)(1); McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (quoting

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980)). Plaintiff

does not allege that any agency has improperly withheld records responsive to a properly submitted

FOIA request. See Marcusse v. U.S. Dep't of Justice Office of Info. Policy, 959 F. Supp. 2d 130,

140 (D.D.C. 2013) (An “agency’s disclosure obligations are triggered by its receipt of a request

that ‘reasonably describes [the requested] records’ and ‘is made in accordance with published rules

stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed.’”) (quoting 5 U.S.C. §

552(a)(3)(A)). The instant complaint neither references a FOIA request number nor contains any

other information, e.g, a copy of any actual request(s) submitted. Indeed, it is unclear what specific

documents plaintiff seeks, if any.

       Plaintiff also cites to her “right of assembly,” which the court construes to mean her rights

under the First Amendment, but the complaint is devoid of any facts to establish such a claim.

“Events may not have unfolded as [p]laintiff wished, but his dissatisfaction . . . [does] not form a

basis” for a constitutional violation, Melton v. District of Columbia, 85 F. Supp. 3d 183, 193

(D.D.C. 2015). “[F]ederal court jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly. The

mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal

courts[,]” Johnson v. Robinson, 576 F.3d 522, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing Bilal v. Kaplan, 904

F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam)).

       Finally, plaintiff has also failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because both she and the

defendant reside in Maryland. See Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)) (“For jurisdiction to exist
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that

the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”).

       For all of these reasons, this court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this

matter and plaintiff has also failed to state a claim. See Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), 8(a); 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). As such, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. An order consistent

with this memorandum opinion is issued separately.

Date: April 17, 2023

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