United States District Court, District of Columbia
PAULETTA HIGGINS, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis . The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident. She sues the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for allegedly refusing to file her " legal paper base[d] on facts of abuse of discreation [sic]." Not. of Compl.; see Compl. Attachments (Superior Court forms). The D.C. Superior Court is an entity within the District of Columbia that cannot be sued in its own name. See Kundrat v. District of Columbia, 106 F.Supp.2d 1, 4-8 (D.D.C. 2000). In addition, plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts or requested any relief to warrant substituting the District of Columbia as the proper defendant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (requiring complaints to contain " (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, ] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[, ] and (3) a demand for the relief sought"); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (a complaint must contain " more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation") (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); Aktieselskabet AF 21 November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 16 n.4, 381 U.S.App.D.C. 76 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (" We have never accepted 'legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations' because a complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims.") (quoting Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276, 305 U.S.App.D.C. 60 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is this 5th day of December 2014, ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in ...