Canuto v. Department of Defense
Civil Action No. 2017-0979
| D.D.C. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Teresita Canuto, pro se, filed an Amended Complaint against the federal Defendants (DOD, DHS, Office of the President, Attorney General), NKTI, and Bank of America.
- Bank of America moved to dismiss the claims against it.
- The court sua sponte dismissed the Amended Complaint as to the federal Defendants and NKTI for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 8).
- Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement of jurisdiction, the claim, and relief; pro se plaintiffs are held to less stringent standards but must still comply.
- The Amended Complaint contains broad, conclusory allegations about deaths, theft, stalking, and sexual assault with no clear link to the Defendants or jurisdiction; it identifies a related Philippines-based NKTI claim and a separate case in the Court of Federal Claims but offers no basis for jurisdiction here.
- The only potentially actionable claim is against Bank of America for a 2009 safebox theft, which the court finds barred by res judicata/claim preclusion because the same facts were adjudicated in Canuto v. Mattis (2017 WL 3437662).
- Because there is no operative complaint, the court dismisses the Amended Complaint sua sponte and denies moot any motions to add defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 8 sufficiency | Canuto argues for relief against the named defendants. | Defendants contend the Amended Complaint is conclusory and not jurisdictionally tethered. | The court held the Amended Complaint fails Rule 8. |
| Jurisdiction over federal Defendants/NKTI | Not specified, but seeks relief against federal entities. | No jurisdictional basis identified for those parties. | Dismissed for lack of proper Rule 8 pleading and jurisdictional basis. |
| Claim preclusion on Bank of America claim | Alleges theft in 2009 against Bank of America. | Same nucleus of facts as prior suit; barred by res judicata. | Held barred; Bank of America's motion to dismiss granted for claim preclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 393 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (reaffirming res judicata/claim preclusion principles in similar contexts)
- Butler v. Calif. St. Disbursement Unit, 990 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2013) (pro se pleading standards under Rule 8 with fair notice obligations)
- Moore v. Agency for Intl. Dev., 994 F.2d 874 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards but must comply with FRCP)