Gamarra v. Obama

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 29, 2016
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2016-1367
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DlSTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEAN PAUL GAMARRA, ) ) plaintiff ) case 1~16-¢\/-01367 § Assigned To : Unassigned V~ ) Assign_ care ; <5/29/2016 BARACK HUSSEIN GBAMA, ) Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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 Haz`nes 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. 23 7, 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 claims 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. l977).

The Court finds that the complaint is incomprehensible. lt does not appear to state the grounds upon which this court’s jurisdiction depends, or a statement of a cognizable claim

showing plaintiff s entitlement to relief, or a demand for relief. As drafted, the complaint fails to

comply with Rule S(a) and therefore it will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE; é/; .¢/,[

United States District Jud