Akere v. Obama

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 31, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-1015
• Status: Published

Opinion

iii

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 3 1 2011 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clark, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia ) Mubaraq Tope Akere, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11 1015 ) Barack H. Obama et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355

FJd 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

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

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). ~,---------------------------------------~---------------------------------------------------

Plaintiff, a resident of the Czech Republic, sues President Barack Obama, the United

States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano,

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. Representative to the United Nations Susan

E. Rice. In a 95-page document, plaintiff essentially raises political questions about U.S. foreign

policy that are "exclud[ed] from judicial review .... " EI-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. u.s., 607 F.3d 836, 840 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Japan Whaling Ass'n v. Am. Cetacean Soc'y, 478 U.S.

221, 230 (1986)). The complaint neither establishes a basis for federal court jurisdiction nor

provides any notice of a claim. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

2 ~20 11 United States District Judge Date: May