MEMORANDUM OPINION
This
matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff
spro se complaint and application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the
in forma pauperis application 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.
Pro
se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.Supp. 237, 239
(D.D.C. 1987). 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). A complaint "that is excessively
long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant
and confusing material will patently fail [Rule 8(a)'s]
standard, and so will a complaint that contains an untidy
assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely
stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions,
sharp harangues and personal comments." Jiggetts v.
D.C., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), affdsub
nom. Cooper v. D.C., No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C.
Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). The instant complaint fits the bill.
Plaintiff
is a federal prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in
Coleman, Florida, purportedly suing under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 et seq., 42
U.S.C. § 1981, and the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1361. See Compl. at 3. Plaintiff and his
mother are "no strangers" to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where
"each" has a history of filing "patently
frivolous and vexatious" complaints. Gullett-El v.
Corrigan, No. 3:17-cv-881-J-32JBT, 2017 WL 10861313, at
*1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2017). As a result, that court has
enjoined plaintiff from filing "any action or other
matter" in that court "or the Fourth Judicial
Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida," without prior
approval. Id. at *5.
The
instant pleading consists of 52 cryptically worded paragraphs
that mention, among other things, "criminal
complaints" and "agency action." The only
discernible claim alleges acts or omissions by the Clerk of
the United States Supreme Court. See Compl. ¶
19 ("The subject-matter of Agency Order Criminal
Complaint #2 is that Supreme Court Clerks Clayton R. Higgins,
Jr. and Scott S. Harris have upon multiple occasions received
Affiant's complete and timely petitions for writ of
certiorari . . . but none of the letters have been answered
nor is there any ; evidence said complete and
timely Petition has ever been filed."). But the Supreme
Court "has inherent [and exclusive] supervisory
authority over its Clerk." In re Marin, 956
F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam). So, this
"lower court may [not] compel the Clerk of the Supreme
Court to take any action." Id.; see Panko v.
Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cert.
denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) ("It seems axiomatic
that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a
higher court to take an action.")- In all other
respects, the complaint simply fails to provide any notice of
a claim and thus will be dismissed.[1] A separate order accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion.
---------
Notes:
[1] In the injunction order, the Florida
court observes that "each time a case is dismissed,
anyone involved with the dismissed case, including the judge,
is named as a defendant in the next filing."
Gullett-El, 2017 WL 10861313, at *1. As a
precautionary matter, plaintiff is advised that in this
circuit, an "in forma pauperis complaint is
properly dismissed as frivolous ... if it is clear from the
face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely
immune from suit on the claims asserted," Crisafi v.
Holland,655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981'), and
judges enjoy absolute immunity from suits based on acts taken
in their judicial capacity, so long ...