Adams v. Doe
This text of Adams v. Doe (Adams v. Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEB- 5 2013 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptc~ Courts for the District of Columbia
DALE B. ADAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) JOHN DOE, et al., )
Defendants. ) ) 13 0157
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in
forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the
complaint.
The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints 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). Even prose litigants, however,
must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends, a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand
for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum
standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to
prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the
doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
3 Plaintiff purports to bring a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971 ), seeking a declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, and monetary damages. Compl. at 1. The defendant is identified only as "John
Doe," id. ~ 5, and plaintiff"has no evidence of who harmed him," id. ~ 13. Plaintiff"has no
evidence of what a party did to him that he can present to the court," id. ~ 8, nor has evidence of
when, where, why or how a party harmed him, see id. ~~ 9-12. Although plaintiff"can't present
his claims to the court," he asserts that "his complaint is viable as stated." Id. ~ 14. Not so.
As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a). The pleading contains neither a
statement regarding this Court's jurisdiction nor a short and plain statement showing that
plaintiff is entitled to relief. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint. An Order
consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE::(f7~4J/3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Adams v. Doe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-doe-dcd-2013.