Court Opinion

ID: 9894190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 20:01:21.935792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:12.801587
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TERRANCE TURNER,                               )
                                               )
               Plaintiff,                      )
                                               )       Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02742 (UNA)
        v.                                     )
                                               )
UNACAST CORPORATION, et al.,                   )
                                               )
                Defendants.                    )

                                   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”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons

explained below, the IFP application will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed without

prejudice.

        Plaintiff, a resident of Sterling, Virginia, sues Unacast Corporation (located in New York),

the Federal Trade Commission (located in the District of Columbia), and several defendants with

no address or other information provided, namely, the United States Special Operations Command,

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service, the

Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the                 Department of

Homeland Security, Walmart, Target, Home Depot, and Lowes. In declining to provide

required contact information for those defendants, Plaintiff fails to comply with D.C. LCvR

5.1(c)(1). Moreover, it is unclear what the defendants have to do with one another, if anything.

        Also, Plaintiff’s complaint is not captioned for this court, or for any court, in contravention

of Federal Rule 10(a) and D.C. LCvR 5.1(g). To that end, Plaintiff attaches an exhibit that is

captioned for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and not this

District.

                                                   1
       The contents of the complaint fare no better. The allegations are difficult to follow, but it

appears that Plaintiff takes issue with defendant Unacast’s alleged possession of cell phone records

and other personal data belonging to millions of people, and its use of that information. He

demands $200 billion in damages.

       First, 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 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). “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). Plaintiff’s complaint falls

within this category, failing to provide defendants or this court with notice of his intended claims

or a clear basis for this court’s jurisdiction. Indeed, there are no claims identified against any

defendant other than, perhaps, Unacast.

       Second, the court notes that Plaintiff cites predominantly to various criminal statutes, but

those statutes do not create a private right of action. See Rockefeller v. U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Tenth Circuit, 248 F. Supp. 2d 17, 20 (D.D.C. 2003) (collecting cases); Prunte v. Universal

Music Group, 484 F. Supp. 2d 32, 42 (D.D.C. 2007) (“[The] Supreme Court has refused to imply

a private right of action in a bare criminal statute.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                   2
Nor may Plaintiff sue to compel the government to initiate a criminal investigation or to prosecute

a criminal case. See Shoshone–Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

(citations omitted); see also Cox v. Sec'y of Labor, 739 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D.D.C. 1990) (citing

cases). “[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest

in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619

(1973); see also Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Powell v. Katzenbach,

359 F.2d 234, 234–35 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 906 (1966); Sattler v.

Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 227 (4th Cir. 1988); Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17, 22 (D.D.C.

2012); Otero v. U.S. Attorney General, 832 F.2d 141, 141–42 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); see

also Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). In other words, the decision of whether

or not to prosecute, and for what offense, rests with the prosecution, see, e.g., Bordenkircher v.

Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978), and “an agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether

through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute

discretion[,]” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). Similarly, Plaintiff cannot compel a

criminal investigation by any law enforcement agency by filing a civil complaint. See Otero v.

U.S. Attorney General, 832 F.2d 141, 141–42 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d

640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). “[A]n agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through

civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion.”

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

       Finally, although Plaintiff lists a few federal civil statutes in passing, and even if his claims

could be fully understood, he has nonetheless failed to establish standing, and “the defect of

standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction.” Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C.

Cir. 1987); see Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (noting that “the core

                                                  3
component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement

of Article III”). Federal courts only have subject matter jurisdiction if there is a “Case” or

“Controvers[y]” to be decided, U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, and in the absence of any actual or

threatened injury, no such case or controversy exists. The alleged “injury must be ‘concrete,

particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable

by a favorable ruling.’” Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (quoting

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 149–50 (2010).

       Here, Plaintiff seemingly alleges that Unacast has violated federal law by improperly

transacting the personal information of millions of people, but he does not identify any injury

specific to himself. And, where “the asserted harm is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in

substantially equal measure by . . . a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not

warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). Additionally,

Plaintiff cannot bring this matter on behalf of others because a pro se litigant can represent only

himself or herself in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the

parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel[.]”); Georgiades v. Martin-

Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (same); U.S. ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec.

Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10, 16 (D.D.C. 2003) (same), affd sub nom. Rockefeller ex rel. U.S. v.

Washington TRU Solutions LLC, No. 03-7120, 2004 WL 180264 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2004).

       For all of these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: October 27, 2023                       ___________________________
                                                     JIA M. COBB
                                                United States District Judge

                                                4