WAGNER v. UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL, No. 1:2022cv02572 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 01/19/2023. (zcb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL L. WAGNER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL, Defendant. Civil Action No. 22-2572 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) and for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No. 1) and this civil action without prejudice. A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be applied to a formal pleading drafted by lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8 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). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense, and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 1 As drafted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Referring to an article published in a newspaper in 2010, plaintiff contends that the actions or inaction of a prosecutor in California warrant investigation. See Compl. at 1. There are no factual allegations regarding the prosecutor’s alleged missteps, however, and the complaint fails to set forth a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction and to provide a short and plain statement of a viable legal claim for relief this Court may order. Furthermore, a plaintiff may not 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). Therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order is issued separately. DATE: January 19, 2023 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
