Rabel v. City of Pasadena, Tx

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AARON BLAKE RABEL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 26-0859 (UNA)

)

CITY OF PASADENA, TX, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on initial review of plaintiff’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those applied to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, 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). It “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). In addition, Rule 8(d) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). “Taken together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of

2

the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff brings this civil action against the City of Pasadena, Texas. See Compl. at 2.

The nature of plaintiff’s legal claims is unclear. The complaint’s Statement of Claim reads:

REQUEST OF COMMUNICATIONS, APPOINTMENT OF MASTERS/MAGISTRATE PRETRIAL CONFERENCES CONFER[ENCES], PRE-TRIAL EXAMINATION FOR PROPOSED CONCEPTS OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS VS.

LIABILITY

Id. at 4. Missing, then, is a statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief, and plaintiff’s

demand for “INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, WITSEC,” id., is not meaningful.

The Court concludes that the complaint fails to meet Rule 8’s minimal standard, and dismisses the complaint without prejudice. A separate order will issue.

/s/

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

United States District Judge DATE: April 14, 2026