Jackson v. United States Government

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided March 9, 2020·No. Civil Action No. 2020-0581·Published

Opinion

FILED

MAR -9 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia

JOANNE E. JACKSON, Plaintiff, Vv. ) Civil Action No. 20-0581 (UNA) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ef al., Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se plaintiff's application to proceed

in forma pauperis and her civil complaint.

The Court has reviewed the 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 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). 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 vy. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

It appears that the plaintiff involuntarily has been hospitalized for mental health treatment where she was forced to take medications which caused severe side effects. It does not appear that the plaintiff is in custody or is hospitalized at this time, and she asked to be “released from outpatient commitment.” Compl. at 2. The few allegations of her complaint do not state a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction or indicate whether or how the named defendants have caused the plaintiff harm. As drafted, this complaint fails to meet Rule 8(a)’s minimal pleading

standard.

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 consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: March { QO 2020

TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jackson v. United States Government, (D.D.C. 2020).

Jackson v. United States Government (Jackson v. United States Government) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)
Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)