Ruther v. Tennessee

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

L. Ruther, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 18-1180 (UNA)

)

)

Tennessee, )

)

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 “(1) 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. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky 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).

2

Plaintiff resides in Manassas, Virginia. He has filed a purported complaint against what is presumed to be the State of Tennessee. The cryptic document simply fails to provide any notice of a claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

__________s/s__________________ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

DATE: May 31, 2018 United States District Judge