UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAMADOU MOUSTAPHA SIDY BA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01154 (UNA) ) LEGAVOX, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court grants the IFP

application and, for the reasons discussed below, it dismisses the complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiff, who resides in Senegal, sues a French website called Légavox. See Compl. at 1–

2. The complaint is far from a model of clarity. As far as it can be understood, plaintiff alleges

that, while he was browsing the website, defendant collected his data and information, and

established an account in his name, without his consent. See id. at 4. He seeks $70,000 in damages.

Id.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch,

, 239–40 (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,

(2009); Ciralsky v. CIA,

(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,

(D.D.C. 1977). “[A] confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does not

comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp.,

(D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The instant complaint falls

squarely into this category, failing to provide defendant or this court with notice of his intended

claims or a clear basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.

To that same end, plaintiff has failed to establish this court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

See generally

and 1332. The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district

courts is limited and is set forth generally at

and 1332. Under those statutes,

federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented,

§ 1331, or the

parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” id. § 1332(a). A party seeking relief in the district court

must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

First, plaintiff has not stated a federal question. See

. He neither cites to

any federal authority, nor can the court otherwise discern a federal question from the allegations

as presented. Second, plaintiff has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. Neither plaintiff nor

defendant are domiciled in the United States; therefore, this matter fails to qualify under any of

the subsection of

(a); see also

§ 1332(c). Moreover, the amount in controversy

falls below the $75,000 threshold. See id. § 1132(b).

For all of these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. An order consistent with

this memorandum opinion is issued separately.

__________/s/_____________ Date: May 24, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge