Haque v. United States
This text of Haque v. United States (Haque v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FILED
JUN 22 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk. u.s. District 8. Bankruptcy FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts torthe District of Columbia SERAJUL HAQUE, ) ) Plamtrff, ) Case: 1:15_Cv_00966 Jury Demand V ; Assigned To : . Assign. Date : I ' UNITED STATES ; Description: Pro Se Gen. ClVll (F Deck) 7 ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff 5 application to proceed in forma pauperis and
his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
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).
Plaintiff submits a form “Employment Discrimination Complaint” purportedly alleging
discrimination based on his race, religion, sex, national origin, and “Retaliation/Age/Professional
etc.” Compl. at 2. Because the complaint contains no factual allegations whatsoever to support an employment discrimination claim, as drafted, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a).
A separate order of dismissal is issued separately.
2 ,, DATE: (é/IQ/ls’ 3 \/§& ~
United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Haque v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haque-v-united-states-dcd-2015.