Kilgore v. Nakamoto, No. 1:25-cv-00498 (D.D.C.), ECF 3 — memorandum opinion dismissing pro se suit

Document text

Research, not advice. Part of the Bitcoin research archive (October 2026). Claims labelled unverified, contested or fringe are reported, not endorsed; statuses of bills and rules are as of the date checked. Government, court and patent records are public domain; the research notes are CC BY 4.0.

Case 1:25-cv-00498-UNA           Document 3       Filed 04/08/25      Page 1 of 2

                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY STUART KILGORE,                       )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )
       v.                                     )      Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00498 (UNA)
                                              )
SATOSHI NAKAMOTO, et al.,                     )
                                              )
                Defendants.                   )

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a civil complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court grants plaintiff’s

IFP application and, for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter without prejudice.

       Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues “Bitcoin,” and ostensibly, two of its

developers. See Compl. at 1–2, 4. The allegations are vague and spare. Plaintiff states, without

any context, that “the company,” presumably Bitcoin, “was designed together and the owner

agreed to 50/50 profit sharing.” See Compl. at 4. He demands approximately $15 billion in

“dividends since 2018.” See id. He does not identify a single cause of action, nor does he cite to

any legal authority. No other information or details are provided.

       Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

requires complaints 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); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v.

CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive

fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate
        Case 1:25-cv-00498-UNA             Document 3        Filed 04/08/25       Page 2 of 2

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D.

497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

        Here, neither the court nor the defendants have received adequate notice of plaintiff’s

intended claims. Plaintiff’s allegations are ambiguous, at best, but a complaint’s “allegations must

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). Because plaintiff has failed to state a discernible

claim, and has also failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction in this court, this case is dismissed

without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: April 8, 2025

                                                Tanya S. Chutkan
                                                TANYA S. CHUTKAN
                                                United States District Judge