RISENHOOVER v. FISCHER et al, No. 1:2019cv03359 - Document 5 (D.D.C. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 6/16/2020. (adh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
RISENHOOVER v. FISCHER et al FILED Doc. 5 6/16/2020 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL MAAS RISENHOOVER, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN JOHN FISCHER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-03359 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court will grant plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed IFP and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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. Dockets.Justia.com 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. Plaintiff, a resident of Taiwan, sues “Captain John Fischer, Commander, Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, island of Cuba . . . and Acting Military Governor (Naval Governor) Guantanamo Perpetual Lease possession,” and “Stefan Kropidlowski, Refuge Manager, Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuges, and Acting Military Governor[.]” The allegations are vague, rambling, and incongruent. Plaintiff seemingly asks the court to declare him [sic] “an attorney and counselor at law in Palmyra Territory, USA, and for the Guantanamo Bay lease possession, including as admiralty and maritime lawyer, attorney, and counsel.” The remainder of the complaint is mostly incomprehensible, consisting of sprawling ruminations on the Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, Guantanamo Bay, various Executive Orders, and emails exchanged between unidentified individuals. The intended causes of action, if any, are completely undefined. The complaint, as pled, fails to provide any notice of a claim or any basis of federal court jurisdiction. Plaintiff has also filed a “motion for judicial notice and to supplement supervening authorities and precedents[,]” which is equally nonsensical. For this reason, the case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. ____/s/________________ EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge DATE: June 16, 2020
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
