Duran v. Trump

Opinion

FILED

5/27/2020

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DAVID DURAN, Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01186 (UNA)

DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. Although 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 must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). A complaint must contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Rule’s purpose is “to ‘give the defendant fair notice of twhat the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

This Complaint fails to meet Rule 8(a)’s minimal pleading standard. Rather than articulating a legal claim, the pleading reads as Plaintiff’s musings about the economy, the criminal justice system, and the impact of COVID-19, among other topics. It neither states the

2

basis for this Court’s jurisdiction nor includes a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he demands.

The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the Complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order will be issued contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: May 27, 2020 CARL J. NICHOLS

United States District Judge