Jordan v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 17, 2019
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2019-0922
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILE@

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA APR'-\ 7 2019 CoNsUELo JoRDAN, ) gg::\t<é \i’§it‘\’;$\§{;°,fi§t%?“@`gmi)ia l Plaintiff, § v. § v Civil Action No. l9-O922 (UNA) D.C. METRoPoLITAN PoLlcE DEPARTMENT,§ Defendant. § MEMORANDUM oPINloN

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and

her pro se civil complaint The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed

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 Haz`nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz'sch, 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).

This complaint fails to meet the pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). It includes no short and plain statement plaintiffs entitlement to the relief she demands, an award of 3138 million. Furthermore, the plaintiff names a defendant- the Metropolitan Police Department - Which as a District of Columbia government agency cannot sue or be sued. See, e.g., Argote v. D.C. Metro. Police Dep't, No. lS-CV-303, 2016 WL 107916, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 8, 2016) (“No one can s_ue a constituent agency of the District of Columbia.”) (citations omitted); Allen-Brown v. District of Columbia, 54 F. Supp. 3d 35, 40 (D.D.C. 2014) (granting defendants' motion to dismiss MPD, which is non sui juris, as a defendant). Absent a statement of cognizable claims

showing the plaintiffs entitlement the relief she demands, the complaint will be dismissed. An

Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is i

/é United States Di\strict Judge DATE: Apl'il , 2019 `