Julius v. Bank of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 27, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-1891
• Status: Published

Opinion

----- -~~ ~--------

FILED OCT 21 2011 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk. U S Oi tr· FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts t~r the ~/~fr~c&t oBtanckr/uptcy o umb/a

TYRONE JULIUS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. Ll 1 b~ll ) BANK OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

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 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). Evenpro 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

N 3 doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff mentions the name of the defendant, see Compl. ~ 1, and appears to list account

transactions, see id. ~ 2, yet his complaint utterly fails to articulate a claim of any sort or the

grounds on which this Court's jurisdiction depends. He demands damages of $999,999,999.00.

ld. ~ 4. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.