Hilliard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 14, 2010
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2010-0783
• Status: Published

Opinion

iV/A;' 'i 4 2010 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Courts for the District of Columbia FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFERY MICHAEL HILLIARD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

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 plaintiffs 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. 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).

I 4

Although the plaintiffs complaint asserts violations of various provisions of the United

States Constitution, federal statutes, and Texas law, the pleading sets forth no factual allegations

to support any of these claims. 111 addition, plaintiff demands injunctive relief, yet fails to

articulate what form such relief should take. For these reasons, the complaint fails to comply

with Rule 8(a), and, therefore, it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United States District Judge

DATE: ~( '0/ (j