PERALES v. OFFICE OF THE CLERK

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF
DELAWARE,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-2644 (JMC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Azael Dythian Perales filed suit against the Office of the Clerk of the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware. ECF 1. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court DISMISSES the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires civil complaints to include “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” It does not demand
“detailed factual allegations,” but it does require enough factual information “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
These procedural requirements promote fairness in litigation—Rule 8(a) is intended to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. (citing
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Pleadings filed by pro se litigants are held to less
stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Case 1:25-cv-02644-JMC Document 4 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Perales’s complaint does not satisfy these requirements. The complaint lists various
criminal and civil statutes he claims that Defendant is “guilty of,” but does not include any factual
allegations describing what Defendant allegedly did to him. ECF 1 at 1. For example, he claims
alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act, id. at 2, but he never alleges that he requested
records from any agency. Similarly, he describes the basis for liability under the federal
racketeering statute, id. at 3–12 but does not identify any action that Defendant allegedly took in
violation of that statute. Overall, the Court is unable to identify what harm Perales claims he has
suffered, who caused him that harm, or how the law entitles him to any relief. No defendant in
receipt of this complaint would know how to respond to it.
Perales’s complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2). The
Court acknowledges that dismissing a case sua sponte is an unusual step, but the Court has the
authority to do so when plaintiffs fail to comply with procedural rules. See, e.g., Brown v. WMATA,
164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016) (dismissing a complaint sua sponte for failing to comply
with Rule 8(a)); Hamrick v. United States, No. 10-cv-857, 2010 WL 3324721, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug.
24, 2010) (same); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–69 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (finding no
abuse of discretion where a district court dismissed a claim without prejudice for failure to comply
with Rule 8(a)).
The Court will grant Perales leave to file an amended complaint that cures the existing
deficiencies by March 13, 2026. 	If he does not file an amended complaint by that date, files
another complaint that fails to comply with Rule 8, or submits a complaint that is frivolous on its
face, this action may be dismissed with prejudice. See Brown, 164 F. Supp. 3d at 35. A separate
order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
SO ORDERED.
Case 1:25-cv-02644-JMC Document 4 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
__________________________
JIA M. COBB
United States District Judge
Date: February 11, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-02644-JMC Document 4 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3