United States District Court, District of Columbia
P. Mehta United States District Judge
Luis Ivan Poblete, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit
against the United States Marshals Service; Chief Judge Beryl
A. Howell of this District Court; attorney Aaron Drew Neal;
the law firm of McNamee, Hosea, Jernigan, Kim, Greenan &
Lynch, P.A. (“McNamee Hosea”); and Channing D.
Phillips, the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia (collectively, “Defendants”). This case
arises against the backdrop of serial litigation in federal
court before Chief Judge Howell in which U.S. Bank National
Association (“U.S. Bank”), represented by McNamee
Hosea, sued Poblete to quiet title to property it acquired at
a foreclosure auction. See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
v. Poblete, No. 15-312, 2016 WL 1089217 (D.D.C. March
18, 2016). In the present matter, Plaintiff alleges McNamee
Hosea worked a fraud upon the federal court, in violation of
both man-made and divine law, by representing U.S. Bank in a
matter over which the court lacked jurisdiction. See
Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, Complaint, ECF No. 1-1
[hereinafter Compl.]. Accordingly, Plaintiff asks the
undersigned to issue a “Writ of
Mandamus/Prohibition” to prevent Chief Judge Howell
from continuing proceedings in the other matter and to
dismiss that case. Id.
Hosea and Neal (“Individual Defendants”) moved to
dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim,
explaining that this suit is one of four retaliatory law
suits Plaintiff has filed in reaction to unfavorable results
in the proceeding before Chief Judge Howell. See
Indiv. Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 2, Mem. in Supp.,
ECF No. 2-1, at 1-2. The U.S. Marshals Service, Chief Judge
Howell, and Phillips (“Federal Defendants”) also
moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. Defs.'
Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, Mem. in Supp., at 2. The court
issued a Fox-Neal Order after each motion was filed,
giving Plaintiff until October 14, 2016, to respond and
warning Plaintiff that failure to respond could result in
dismissal of the case. See Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d
453, 456-57 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (requiring the district court to
notify pro se litigants of the dispositive effect of a Rule
12(b)(6) motion); Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507,
509 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (same); Order, ECF No. 3;
Order, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has neither responded to the
motions nor sought additional time to respond.
thoroughly reviewing the pleadings, the court dismisses this
matter for failure to state a claim under Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against the Individual
Defendants and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for
any claim against the Federal Defendants.
plaintiff's complaint “must 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
This rule “does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations, ' but it demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “Although pro se
complaints are held ‘to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, ' and a plaintiff is
entitled to all favorable inferences that may be drawn from
his or her allegations, a pro se complaint, like any other,
must present a claim upon which relief can be granted by the
court.” Nicastro v. Clinton, 882 F.Supp. 1128,
1129 (D.D.C. 1995) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (citation omitted), aff'd,
84 F.3d 1446 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Rule 8(a) aims to
ensure defendants are given fair notice of the claims
asserted against them so they may prepare a responsive answer
to the plaintiff's allegations and adequately defend
themselves. Caldwell v. Argosy University, 797
F.Supp.2d 25, 27 (D.D.C. 2011).
federal court must dismiss an action over which it concludes
it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
“A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds
when it ‘is patently insubstantial, presenting no
federal question suitable for decision.'”
Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir.
2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 29 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.
Cir. 1994)). Patently insubstantial claims are those that are
“flimsier than doubtful or questionable”; they
are “essentially fictitious.” Best, 39
F.3d at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted).
the Complaint liberally and drawing all reasonable inferences
in Poblete's favor, the court understands the allegations
against the Individual Defendants to be that Poblete has a
“superior claim” to title over the property at
issue in the litigation before Chief Judge Howell and
requests that the undersigned dismiss that litigation as
fraudulent and hold legally responsible those actors
involved. See Id. ¶¶ 7, 10-14, 17-18,
22-23. Specifically, Poblete contends that McNamee Hosea
“entered a Void Summons and Complaint on or about March
3rd, 2015, Case #1:15-cv-00312, in breach of the public
trust, outside of the Courts [sic] ministerial duty, and
without proof of delegation of authority of jurisdiction of
any kind.” Compl. ¶ 6. Furthermore, he claims
“Plaintiffs attorney” has conspired with the
court and its officers to deprive him and his parents of
their citizenship, as well as engaged in acts of
“inland piracy and “PRESS-GANGING.”
graciously construed, the allegations levied against the
Individual Defendants fall short of meeting the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a). At most, the Complaint alleges
that the Individual Defendants participated as counsel in a
proceeding over which the court lacked jurisdiction.
See Compl. ¶¶ 6, 14. Poblete makes no
further statements of fact or allegations that put the
Individual Defendants on notice of the claims against them.
Thus, Poblete has not met his obligations under Rule 8(a)
and, therefore, the court grants the Individual
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
liberally construing the Complaint, the court struggles to
understand Poblete's allegations against the Federal
Defendants. Poblete alleges all the Defendants are
“acting in fraud and in violation of God's
covenant, and outside the decedents will by attempting to
enforce an unlawful lien on said real and personal property
of the Petitioners estate.” Compl. ¶ 13.
Additionally, he contends that the federal court is a
criminal enterprise, and Chief Judge Howell is acting
“without jurisdiction” and “in conflict
with the Federal Constitution.” Id. ¶ 17.
Lastly, as noted above, Poblete claims “the Court and
the Court officers” have conspired to deprive him and
his parents of their citizenship, ...