govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-04064-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                       
EDDIE V. OLIVER, III,   ) 
      ) 
Plaintiff,      )  
                                                   ) 
v.     ) Civil Action No. 1:25- cv-04064 (UNA) 
     ) 
      ) 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) 
    )  
Defendants.    ) 
 
Memorandum Opinion  
 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application for leave 
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons below, the court dismisses this 
matter for failure to meet the  pleading requirements set forth in  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
8(a).  
At the outset, the c ourt denies Plaintiff’s IFP application. Parties instituting a civil action 
are required to pay the applicable filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), unless granted IFP status under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915. Whether to permit or deny an application to proceed IFP is within the sound 
discretion of the court. See Van Oliver v. United States, No. 1:25-cv-04075, 2026 WL 715227, at 
*1 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2026). An individual need not “be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of 
the [IFP] statute,” but a party seeking to proceed IFP should show that they cannot “pay or give 
security for the costs and still be able to provide” for “the necessities of life.” McKelton v. Bruno, 
428 F.2d 718, 719–20 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (cleaned up). “[C]ourts will generally look to whether the 
person is employed, the person’s annual salary, and any other property or assets the person may 
possess.” Lin v. District of Columbia, No. 16-cv-645, 2020 WL 7695973, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 
2020) (citation omitted). Plaintiff attests that he earns a gross pay of $42,000 and that he possesses 
Case 1:25-cv-04064-UNA     Document 4     Filed 04/21/26     Page 1 of 3
billions of dollars in other assets. See ECF No. 2 at 1–2. Although he owes student loan debt and 
is responsible for three dependents, these obligations do not exceed his combined earnings and 
assets. See id. Accordingly, he has not made the requisite showing to proceed IFP , and his IFP 
application is denied.  
 Next, the court finds that the complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements of 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Rule 8(a) 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) . This “does not require 
‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-
harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). This ensures the defendant has “notice of what the claim is 
and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). 
 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to give minimum notice of any cognizable claim or to establish 
this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff sues multiple defendants,  including federal 
agencies, countries, continents, public figures, universities, and the National Football League. See 
ECF No. 1 at 1–3. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s “civil right[s]” have been violated with 
“extreme assaults and financial disparity” by “Confederate supporters.” Id. at 4. The complaint 
further alleges that Plaintiff’s fingerprinting was delayed, which caused him to “get rejected from 
Defense Financi[al] Accounting Services.” Id. He appears to seek an “investigation on various 
departments that were aware of the treason and perjury” and “a further investigation lead as far 
back as 1991.”  Id. These vague and conclusory allegations of wrongdoing are insufficient to 
provide “notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly , 550 U.S. at 
555 (cleaned up); see also Jiggetts v. Dist. of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d 
Case 1:25-cv-04064-UNA     Document 4     Filed 04/21/26     Page 2 of 3
sub nom. Cooper v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) 
(explaining that “a complaint that contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly 
nor concisely stated” does not “comport with the standards of Rule 8”).   
 Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this 
memorandum opinion.     
 
 
Date: April 21, 2026      /s/______________________ 
                    AMIR H. ALI    
                         United States District Judge  
 
 
Case 1:25-cv-04064-UNA     Document 4     Filed 04/21/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight