Crisp v. Walker

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 17, 2010
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2010-0810
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

MAY 1 7 2610 UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT coURT

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts for the District of Co|umbia

TAURICE M. CRISP, ) Plaintiff, § g ` v. § Civil Action No. ALVIN WALKER, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff’ s 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 plaintiff’ s 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 pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. l987). 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. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at a state correctional institution in North Carolina, alleges that he has been "denied everything since l995," including jail credit, sex, phone calls, mail, food, freedom, and medical treatment, among other privileges. Compl. at 5 (page number designated by the court). Although the pleading alludes to tort claims and claims under Bz'vens v. Sz`x Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), plaintiff does not articulate what those claims are. Nor does plaintiff expressly state the relief he demands. See Compl. at 5.

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’ s complaint and concludes that it neither contains a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends nor a claim that plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for its failure to comply with Rule S(a). An Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

€/(/“** 5 /)‘c/c/L,

United States District Judge

mata 5[.1|}0