govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-04070-1

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
 
ROCKIE FURTADO JR., 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
ROCKIE FURTADO SR., 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
Case No. 25-cv-4070 (JMC) 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
On November 18, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Rockie Furtado Jr. filed a civil complaint. ECF 1. 
On December 8, 2025, this Court dismissed that complaint without prejudice for failure to comply 
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) . ECF 5; ECF 6. Plaintiff timely filed an amended 
complaint on December 19, 2025. ECF 9. The Court again dismisses the complaint under Rule 8. 
The amended complaint still fails to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim 
is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In 
addition to a single sentence in which Plaintiff alleges Defendant “forced [him] to use drugs at a 
young age for over a decade,” Plaintiff also mentions that Defendant “chang[ed] [Plaintiff’s] legal 
name . . . just to mislead , bully[,] and keep [Plaintiff] in the dark while manipulat[ing Plaintiff] 
into using the same drugs [Defendant] used only to outshine (impressions of almightiness) and 
expose” Plaintiff. ECF 9 at 4. In a notice Plaintiff filed to supplement his amended complaint, he 
further alleges that he has been “held against [his] will for years.” ECF 10 at 1. As with his initial 
complaint, Plaintiff still “does not reference a cause of action.” ECF 5 at 2. Nor is it apparent from 
the amended complaint what legal claim Plaintiff is asserting—he alludes to violat ions of criminal 
laws, as well as his own “local and federal issues” and “serious mental health” issues. ECF 10 at 

2 
1. And although Plaintiff has now indicated that he is relying on diversity jurisdiction—the first 
complaint invoked federal question jurisdiction, see ECF 1 at 3 —he has not included any 
allegations related to the amount in controversy, see ECF 9 at 4. Absent those allegations, and 
absent any indication of what legal claim Plaintiff is asserting, the Court cannot determine whether 
either basis for federal jurisdiction is satisfied. Plaintiff has therefore still failed to provide a “plain 
statement of the claim showing that” he is “entitled to relief ” and “of the grounds for the court’s 
jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). The Court therefore again dismisses his complaint for 
failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 
That conclusion also requires denial of the pending motion for a default judgment. ECF 17. 
Setting aside that Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 55’s procedure for seeking a default judgment 
by first filing an “affidavit or otherwise” showing Defendant’s default, Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), the 
Court cannot enter a default judgment. Before awarding a default judgment, the Court must assure 
itself that “the allegations in the complaint are well- pled.” Eckardt v. KBR Luxury, Inc. , No. 25-
cv-2168, 2025 WL 2926423, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 15, 2025). Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not 
satisfy Rule 8, the complaint’s allegations fail that standard. 
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is therefore DISMISSED for failure to comply with 
Rule 8(a)(2) for largely the same reasons stated in this Court’s prior opinion. See ECF 5. That is, 
“even construing the [amended] complaint liberally, the Court [ still] is unable to identify what 
cognizable harm [Plaintiff] is alleging ” and “how the law entitles h im to any relief.” Id. And as 
noted in the Court’s prior opinion, because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint that 
comports with Rule 8, this action shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Id. at 3 (citing 
Brown v. WMATA , 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016) ). The other pending motions —for a 

3 
protective order, ECF 18, and to expedite the answer, ECF 19—are denied as moot. A separate 
order accompanies this memorandum opinion. 
SO ORDERED. 
 __________________________ 
 JIA M. COBB 
 United States District Judge 
 
Date: May 13, 2026 
 

Passage view · GavelSight