United States District Court, District of Columbia
matter is before the Court on its initial review of
plaintiffs pro se complaint ("Compl.") and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff,  a resident of Washington, D.C., sues
"unknown individuals servicing the District of Columbia
Department of Health & Human Services." The
accompanying case information sheet styles the matter under
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
and the allegations in the complaint allude to an undefined
vast conspiracy. Plaintiff alleges that he was subject to
general civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). More specifically, he alleges that his
access to food stamps was delayed because an
"employee-Rep (Ms. Shaw) . . ." requested a letter
regarding his possible existing benefits in California. He
alleges that this request caused delay in receipt of
benefits, forcing him to unnecessarily fill out a new benefit
application form. He seeks millions of dollars in damages.
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 i 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).
from the passing reference to "Ms. Shaw," who is
not named as a party to the lawsuit, plaintiff fails to
provide the names, addresses, or any other identifying
information regarding the "unknown individuals"
intended as defendants. As plaintiff himself acknowledges,
the Local Rules of this Court state that a plaintiff
"filing pro se in forma pauperis must provide
in the [complaint's] caption the name and full residence
address or official address of each party." LCvR
5.1(c)(1). Further, the District of Columbia Department of
Human Services ("DHS") is non suijuris. See
Gallion v. D.C. Dep't of Human Services, No. 91-2587
(SSH) (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 1992) (citing Turner v. District
of Columbia, 532 A.2d 662, 675 (D.C. App. 1987) and
Braxton v. National Capital Housing Auth., 396 A.2d
215, 216-17 (D.C. App. 1978)). A noncorporate department or
other body within a municipal corporation is non
suijuris, and cases in this jurisdiction have
consistently found that bodies within the District of
Columbia government are not suable as separate entities.
See, e.g., Nix El v. Williams, 174 F.Supp.3d 87, 93
(D.D.C. 2016); see also Hickman v. Library of
Congress, 74 F.Supp.3d 329, 331 (D.D.C. 2014);
Miller v. Board of Ed. of District of Columbia, 106
F.Supp. 988, 991 (D.D.C. 1952).
faces additional hurdles. To state a claim under
Bivens, plaintiff must allege that he was deprived
of a constitutional right by a federal agent acting under
color of federal authority. Bivens, 403 U.S. at
395-97. He has not identified any federal agents as a part of
this lawsuit. To state a claim under § 1983, a complaint
must allege facts sufficient to support a reasonable
inference that (1) a person (2) acting under color of state,
territorial, or District of Columbia law (3) subjected
plaintiff or caused plaintiff to be subjected (4) to the
deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle,
471 U.S. 808, 829 (1985). Here, plaintiff has failed to
provide information specific enough to satisfy these
ambiguous allegations comprising the complaint fail to
provide adequate notice of a claim. The pleading also fails
to set forth allegations with respect to this Court's
jurisdiction, or a valid basis for an award of damages.
Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
 Plaintiff files this suit as
"Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez d/b/a Starlight Consulting
Services." While it is unclear what relevance, if any,
Starlight Consulting Services has to this matter, as a
general rule, applicable here, a pro se litigant can
represent only himself or herself in federal court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Georgiades v.
Martin-Trigona,729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984);
see also Franklin v. Vilsack, Misc. Action No.
11-0206 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 2011) (holding ...