Rowe v. Deutsche Bank

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 11, 2016
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2016-0897
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 1 2315 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA c\erk, u.s. msr_rscx_a Ban\

)

Plaintiff, -) ) Case: 1:16-cv-0O897

V_ ) Assigned To ; Unassigned ) Assign. Date : 5/11/2016 D@utsche Bank, ) Description; Pro Se Gen. C\v\|

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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 complaints to contain "(l) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. S(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2()09); Ciralslcy v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff is a resident of Orlando, Florida. He purports to sue Deutsche Bank, but the complaint consists of cryptic statements that fail to provide notice of a claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction. Therefore, dismissal will be without prejudice. A separate order

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: q ,20l6