Opinion
Civil Action 23-02820 (UNA)
10-31-2023
GARY V. JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. TRACY O'LEARY TEVYAW, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JIA M. COBB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff's Complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court will grant the application and dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring immediate dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted).
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, 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 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). It “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff, a resident of Jonesboro, Georgia, has sued an individual in Providence, Rhode Island, for $200,000. Plaintiff “avers that Defendants are assaulting” him. ECF No. 1 at 1. He states that “Fourteenth Amendment rights violations include: 1) Invidious Disparate Treatment, 2) Producing false medical records, [and] 3) Human Rights Violations” and seeks damages for “Lost Productivity and Mental Exhaustion.” Id. Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing his entitlement to relief.Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.
In at least 34 separate actions filed within a month's time, Plaintiff has brought the same one-paragraph typewritten complaint against a different defendant and has requested IFP status. Plaintiff's persistence in bringing insubstantial actions may result ultimately in his inability to proceed IFP. See Hurt v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 544 F.3d 308, 310 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (authorizing the denial of IFP status prospectively “when the number, content, frequency, and disposition of a litigant's filings show an especially abusive pattern”) (cleaned up)).