UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EDDIE V. OLIVER, III, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01809 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Amended
Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 3, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons discussed below, it
dismisses the Amended Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice.
Plaintiff, a resident of Ohio, sues approximately 35 defendants, including the United States,
U.S. states, foreign countries, federal agencies, hospitals, and other entities and individuals. See
Am. Compl. at 1–2. It also appears that Plaintiff may attempt to bring this action on behalf of
other plaintiffs; indeed, it is unclear who is actually even bringing this case, see id. at 1, 5–6. In
any event, Plaintiff may not do so, because in federal court a plaintiff “may [only] plead and
conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Georgiades v. Martin–
Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (individual “not a member of the bar of any court . .
. may appear pro se but is not qualified to appear in [federal] court as counsel for others”) (citation
and footnote omitted).
The allegations themselves are difficult to follow and involve a hodgepodge of anecdotes,
ranging in topics, including, inter alia, imprisonments, a “baby bible investigation,” local courts
in Ohio, “high crimes,” fraternity hazing, mental health diagnoses, substance abuse, harassment, marriage counseling, theft, and U.S. Supreme Court justices. See id. at 4–5. Plaintiff asks the
Court for damages and assorted equitable relief. See id.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, see Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.
Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987), and here, the Amended Complaint fails to comply with Rule
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a pleading 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).
Plaintiff’s allegations are neither clear nor direct, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1), and the
paragraphs are not limited to a single set of circumstances, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). When, as
here, a pleading “contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely
stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal
comments [,]” it does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8. Jiggetts v. Dist. of Columbia, 319
F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017
WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). Put differently, “[a] confused and rambling narrative of
charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort
Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint falls squarely into this category, failing to provide the
Court or the Defendant with adequate notice of a claim, and falling short of establishing the Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (“we do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face”); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (2009) (“Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”).
Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion.
__________/s/_____________
Date: August 26, 2026 AMIT P. MEHTA
United States District Judge