United States District Court, District of Columbia
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 23, 2018, the Court dismissed this in forma
pauperis action brought pro se because
plaintiff had failed to provide defendants' full names
and addresses to enable the court officers to effect service
of process. See Order [Dkt. 19]. Plaintiff appealed.
Based on a submission appended to plaintiff's appellate
brief, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit remanded the case for this Court to consider the
document. It suggested that plaintiff may have timely
complied with the order to provide the full name and address
for each defendant being sued and proposed that plaintiff be
allowed to file the document so that this Court could
“consider whether the complaint was properly
dismissed” and “conduct further proceedings as
appropriate.” Judgment, No. 18-5169 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18,
remand, plaintiff was directed to file the document that was
before the Court of Appeals. See May 21, 2019 Order
[Dkt. # 39]. In response, plaintiff submitted a “Notice
of Filing” containing an assortment of documents [Dkt.
# 40]. The Court has retrieved for review and filing in this
case the document from the appellate court's file. No.
18-5169, Document #1752248 at 50-51. For the reasons that
follow, the Court is satisfied that the dismissal was proper.
“Registry of Defendants” appended to
plaintiff's brief in the Court of Appeals, plaintiff
lists: (1) “Rural Route 276, Loretto,
Pennsylvania” as the address for four of the six named
defendants, including “Mr. John Doe R. Duclos”;
(2) “United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C.
20523-0001” as the address for “John Doe L.R.
Heate Inspector General”; and (3) “c/o Director/
Secretary of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, United States Government Campus, Washington, D.C.
20535-0001” as the address for defendant Barry Soetoro
“ ‘Born Alien'-at-Large.” Plaintiff has
sued each defendant in his or her “Personal Capacity,
” Compl. Caption, which generally requires personal
service by “(A) delivering a copy of the summons and
the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a
copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place
of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who
resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each” to the
individual's authorized agent. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(2). To
effect personal service, the U.S. Marshal would need a
physical address that plaintiff still has not supplied.
other reasons inform the Court's decision. First, Barry
Soetoro is a variation of “a name associated [often
derisively] with former President Barack Obama.”
Chapman v. Mehta, No. 17-cv-2812, Mem. Op. at 2
(D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2018). See Compl. at
10-11 (“Barry Soetro is a Charlatan . . .
Born Alien Deportable Immigrant [and] for the past 47
uninterrupted years criminally impersonating a United States
citizen . . . .”); Chapman v. Obama, 719 Fed.
App'x 13 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (case caption listing
“Barack Hussein Obama, In His Personal and Individual
Capacity As Ineligible Commander In Chief of the Executive
Branch of Government; Void Forty Fourth President of the
United States of America, also known as Barry Surroro, also
known as Barack Dunham, also known as Barry Dunham, also
known as Barry Obama, also known as Barry Sierro”);
Hollister v. Soetoro, 368 Fed. App'x 154 (D.C.
Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (case caption listing “Barry
Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural person; de facto
President in posse; and as de jure President in posse, also
known as Barack Obama”) (affirming district court's
orders dismissing complaint for failure to state a claim and
reprimanding attorney “as the sanction for his part in
preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous
complaint”) (citations omitted))). It is axiomatic that
a former president cannot be served in care of a United
not only has plaintiff failed to provide the full names of
defendants Duclos and “Heate, ” he has changed
the spelling of lead defendant “L.R. Heath” and
has added “John Doe” to both names. It also is
axiomatic that process cannot be issued for “John
Doe” defendants, much less served on them.
plaintiff has provided full names for remaining defendants
Bradley, O'Donnell and Davenport and the same rural route
address for all three. An internet search associates Rural
Route 276 with the Loretto Federal Correctional Institution
in Pennsylvania, where plaintiff was once incarcerated, but
it is not a mailing address. See
even if plaintiff could supply adequate information for the
court officers to attempt personal service, the Court finds
no reason to vacate the dismissal order. To justify reopening
a dismissed case, a court must have some basis “to
believe that vacating the judgment [or final order] will not
be an empty exercise or a futile gesture.” Murray
v. D.C., 52 F.3d 353, 355 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Otherwise,
it is left with reinstating the case only “to promptly
dismiss” it. See Thomas v. Holder, 750 F.3d
899, 903 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“What could be a more
‘futile gesture' than reinstating an appeal only to
then immediately dismiss it?”).
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). It also assists the court in determining
whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
is a self-described “life-long, public servant, federal
discoverer, ” among other titles. Compl. at 7;
see Compl. Caption (“Saint” and
“Eminence” Chapman). The Court has painstakingly
read plaintiff's complaint, which is neither short nor
plain. On the contrary, the pleading consists of 54 pages and
an additional 79 pages of attachments. The complaint
“is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent,
[and] full of . . . confusing material . . . and
[inappropriate] personal comments.” Jiggetts v.
District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017),
aff'd sub nom. Cooper v. District of
Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov.
1, 2017) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). It
“patently fail[s]” Rule 8(a)'s pleading
standard. Id. In the absence of an intelligible
amended complaint, reopening this matter would be an exercise
foregoing reasons, the Court concludes after consideration of
plaintiff's “Registry of Defendants” that (1)
the dismissal was proper and (2) reopening this matter would
be pointless. Consequently, the case will ...