govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-01793-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
CARMELA A. SCIABARRA, et al.,  )   
) 
Plaintiffs, ) 
) 
 v.      ) Civil Action No. 25-1793 (UNA) 
       ) 
DTLR, et al.,      ) 
       ) 
   Defendants.   ) 
 
 
Memorandum Opinion 
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Livia M. Scotto’s application to proceed in forma 
pauperis, ECF No. 3, and the pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. For the reasons below, the court grants 
the application and dismisses the complaint without prejudice.1 
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those applied 
to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro se litigants 
must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 
(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain 
a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, a short and plain statement 
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief the pleader 
seeks. 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 
 
1  This case also appears to be brought by Carmela A. Sciabarra. See ECF No. 1. However, 
Sciabarra did not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the application is 
granted only on behalf of Scotto. 
Case 1:25-cv-01793-UNA     Document 4     Filed 04/21/26     Page 1 of 2
2 
 
the defendants have “notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 
550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up).  
Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to give minimum notice of any cognizable claim or to establish 
this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint consists of an assortment of unexplained 
exhibits, including court documents from other cases , vehicle warranty and service information , 
and a complaint to the Florida Bar . See, e.g., ECF No. 1 -2 at 3; ECF No. 1-3 at 7 –19, 37–55. 
Plaintiff’s complaint is wholly insufficient to provide “notice of what the claim is and the grounds 
upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up) . Additionally, w here, as here, a 
pleading “contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated,” it 
does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8.  Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 
(D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. Dist rict of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 
(D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017).  
For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies 
this memorandum opinion.     
 
   
       /s/ 
       AMIR H. ALI 
       United States District Judge 
DATE: April 21, 2026   
 
 
 
Case 1:25-cv-01793-UNA     Document 4     Filed 04/21/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight