United States District Court, District of Columbia
August 28, 2014
Janice Wolk Grenadier, Plaintiff,
USDC, OF DC Federal Judge James Boasberg et al., Defendants.
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)(iii) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary damages from an immune defendant).
Plaintiff is a resident of Alexandria, Virginia. She sues a number of federal judges, including three judges of this Court, three court clerks, including the Clerk of this Court, a group of lawyers in Virginia, one of whom shares plaintiff's surname, and a retired "Elected Commonwealth Attorney City of Alexandria." Compl. Caption. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages exceeding $3 million. See Compl. at 51-52.
The complaint captioned: "Verified Complaint/Conspiracy Not a Domestic Problem An American Problem" is far from clear. Plaintiff mentions "conspiracy" and charges "treason by judges, lawyers, elected officials, government employees, [and] state employees." Id. at 1. She accuses the defendants of interfering with her civil rights and of "attempt[ing] to harm [her] and her girls through drugs, rape & slander... to prevent due process, judicial misconduct criminal misconduct, discrimination..., " and a host of other wrongs. Id. at 1-2.
What is clear from the allegations is that plaintiff is suing the judicial defendants (including the clerks of court) for alleged actions they took in their official capacities. See id. at 5-15 (discussing judicial defendants' orders); see also id. at 2 (attributing court defeats to "discrimination" and accusing District Judges Boasberg, Howell, and Walton of this Court of "contin[ing] [a] pattern" in January 2014 started by "Judges or representatives of the Judges" in Virginia); id. at 24 (accusing the Clerk of this Court of "[c]ollusion with Judge Howell and Judge Boasberg to return documents properly stamped into the record"). Hence, the judicial defendants are absolutely immune from this lawsuit. See Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Thanh Vong Hoai v. Superior Court for District of Columbia, 344 Fed.Appx. 620 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
In all other respects, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 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).
The rambling accusations comprising the instant complaint fail to provide adequate notice of a claim, and any claims based on events as far back as 1986, see Compl. at 16, are most likely time-barred. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.