Adeyinka v. Norton of Life Lock

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 22, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2705
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EMMANUEL ADEWALE ADEYINKA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-2705 (UNA) ) NORTON LIFE LOCK, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of pro se Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and civil complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons

stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro

se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants 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).

1 It appears Plaintiff is dissatisfied with Defendants’ services because his email account has

been hacked and he has been locked out of his account. The complaint is woefully short on factual

allegations, so short that neither defendant has fair notice of the claim(s) against it. As drafted, the

complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading standard set forth in Rule 8, and it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: October 22, 2024 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge