“An Uncanny Ability To Recognize The Obvious”

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (District Judge Cooper) has dismissed lawsuits against the Chief Justice and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Plaintiff Daniel L. Pohle, proceeding pro se, filed complaints in these two cases challenging Rule 28.8 of the Supreme Court Bar (“the Rule”), which prevents pro se litigants from appearing for oral argument before the Supreme Court. The first action, 25-cv-808, is against the Honorable John G. Roberts, in his official capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States Bar. Pohle titled that complaint, “First Amendment Civil Action,” seemingly alleging that Supreme Court Rule 28.8 violates the First Amendment. The complaint seeks more than $1 billion in damages.

The second action, 25-cv-809, is also brought against the Chief Justice Roberts, in his official capacity, as well as the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her official capacity as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as the President of the United States of America, (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”), and the State of Indiana. Pohle’s complaint in 25-cv-809, labeled “PETITION for Leave to Challenge the Constitutionality of the United States Rule 28.8 and the Legal Status of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” has no clearly identifiable claims.

Because neither complaint satisfies Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 12(b)(1), or 12(b)(6), the Court will dismiss both cases without prejudice.

Averments

Pohle filed the complaints in these two civil actions on the same day. In 25-cv-808, he alleges a “Financial Collusion Scheme” between Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court Bar that “created a culture of aversion against Pro Se non lawyer Petitioners in the SCOTUS.” Compl., 25-cv-808, at 1. Pohle claims that the “Chief Justice and his wife had received about ten million dollars from SCOTUS Bar members for help with job placement the Chief Justice created SCOTUS Rule 28.8 which silenced the Pro Se non-lawyer petitioners thus creating more ‘Cash Flow’ for the SCOTUS Bar[.]” Id. He exclaims that this scheme effectively said “to hell with the First Amendment.” Id. at 2. He appears to suggest that a previous case of his, Pohle v. Pence, in which he filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, “reached conference” and “with Chief Justice Roberts recused” froze in its tracks. Id. In the section of the complaint titled, “Redress,” he seeks more than $1 billion so that the “judgement [is] a wake up call to all who dare to challenge the Constitutional Rights and Intelligence of Non-Lawyers” as he believes that the “United States Supreme Court must be made available to non-lawyers.” Id. at 3. Attached to the complaint as Exhibit A are a variety of documents, including the text of the First Amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, the docket for Pohle v. Pence, and the petition for certiorari he filed.

In 25-cv-809, attached to the complaint—which contains no identifiable claims—as “Exhibit A” is a packet of disjointed documents, including a letter from Pohle to several federal agencies in which he claims to be “a spatial savant with an uncanny ability to recognize the obvious” and requests a clearance upgrade for an FBI Special Agent to whom Pohle has “pushed hundreds of pages of evidence”; documents from several “original action[s]” that Pohle previously filed in the Supreme Court raising a litany of incomprehensible issues ranging from Supreme Court Rule 28.8 to “Blood Diamonds,” whistleblowers, and international treaties; a “challenge to President Trump and Governor [Indiana] Mike Braun to: Grow a set of cojones”; and various mail tracking numbers and receipts for unknown items. See 25-cv-809, Ex. 1 at 3, 7, 9–13, 15, 17–20. In May 2025, Plaintiff requested an injunction ordering President Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Braun to “Cease and Desist knowing and willfully violating the United Nation Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods” and to grant him “one billion and one US dollars in the form of a tax exempt restoration grant.” See Mot. for Inj., 25cv-809, at 1, 3.

Dismissed

Both of Pohle’s complaints are “rambling, disjointed, incoherent, [and] full of irrelevant of confusing material” and therefore “patently fail” to satisfy Rule 8(a)’s standard. Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom., Cooper v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) (internal quotations omitted). The complaints lack any coherent factual allegations and request a laundry list of relief including more than $1 billion, see Compl. 25-cv-808, at 3, and “[1] The Removal of Supreme Court Rule 28.8. [2] The Resignation of Chief Justice John G Roberts [sic] with apology. [3] The Resignation of associate Justice Jackson with apology. [4] The Prosecution of Redmond Barnes.” See 25-cv-809, Ex. 1 at 12. Plaintiff further claims national security expertise as a “spatial savant” working with the FBI, alleges a conspiracy by the Supreme Court involving a clerk who  “thinks he is President Barak [sic] Obama’s public defender,” threatens a lawsuit that will result in “the fall of a constitutional republic called The United States of America,” and states that he provided mining equipment “to criminals seeking Blood Diamonds in failing nations.” See Compl., 28-cv-809, Ex. 1 at 3, 11–14, 37. The asserted claims are “neither plainly nor concisely stated” and cannot give the Defendants “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. And his various replies to the motions to dismiss only accentuate this point. In both, he seems to include allegations concerning Pohle v. Pence, the case he sought certiorari for, rather than anything concerning Rule 28.8. See ECF No. 22 at 1; ECF No. 27 at 1-2. In the second, his requested relief is an order to Solicitor General Sauer to bring Pohle v. Pence before the Supreme Court. ECF No. 27 at 2. The Court is unable to discern what these complaints claim, and thus, they do not satisfy Rule 8(a).

(Mike Frisch)