Hipes v. State of California

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 29, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-1193
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

JUN 2 9 2011 UNITED sTATES DISTRICT CoURT

C\erk, U.S. Distnct & Bankruptcy

FGR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA Courtstorthe Dlstrlct of Co|umbia

JACK ALLEN HIPES, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) r

v. ) Civil Action No. 1 ) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs 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. Kerrzer, 404 U.S. 5l9, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule S(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. S(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. Calzfarzo, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

lt appears that plaintiffs claims arise from the placement of his grandchildren in foster care by state officials in Califomia. The complaint does not state a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction or a short and plain statement of plaintiffs entitlement to relief As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule S(a) and it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

t€§§»»

United States District Judge

DATE:& ll