De La Cruz v. United States

Opinion

11/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ISAAC JOSE DE LA CRUZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case: 1:14—cv—02120 V ) Assigned To : Unassigned Assign. Date : 12/16/2014 ) Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil UNITED STATES, ) ) 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 US. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. T isch, 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).

‘

Stated briefly, the complaint is unintelligible. The Court neither can determine the identities of the defendants, nor identify the wrongs the defendants allegedly have committed. As drafted, the complaint utterly fails to set forth a short and plain statement of plaintiff 5 claims, and it therefore will be dismissed. See, e. g., Cofield v. Williams, No. 96-5072, 1997 WL 68271, at *1 (DD. Cir. Jan. 15, 1997) (affirming dismissal of “[a]ppellant’s complaint and various pleadings [which] fail to provide sufficient information for appellees or the court to discern what appellees allegedly did wrong”). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued

separately.

Unite State

DATE: pig/M