Ruther v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 22, 2019
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2019-0769
• Status: Published

Opinion

FM,§§Y

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 2 2 2919 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C|erk, U.S. District & Bankru t Courts for the District of Co|ui]niil,a L. Ruther, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v ) Civil Action No. 19-769 (UNA)

) . ) United States et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

, This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs 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 S(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pro se litigants must comply with the F ederal 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. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 66l, 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 has submitted a one-page cryptically worded document, which has been construed liberally as a Complaint [Dkt. # l]. The content is largely incomprehensible and thus provides no notice of a claim. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

Date: April/é,2019

United States District Judge