Spencer v. Greyhound Bus Lines, Inc.

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 9, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-0799
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PRINCESS MARIA SPENCER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-0799 (UNA) ) GREYHOUND BUS LINES, INC., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis and her civil complaint.

The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed

by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted

by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even 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). 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

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

In conclusory fashion, plaintiff alleges she “was discriminated against, stalked, and

[subjected to] hate crime while riding Greyhound buses and in Greyhound terminals.” Compl. at 1 1. For example, plaintiff alleges she “was almost attacked once” and was exposed to “persons

playing the witchcraft/voodoo game[,]” id., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1) at 2, while travelling on

unspecified dates through multiple states, see id., Ex. at 3. She also alleges that she was

overcharged. See id. Plaintiff demands “restitution for and/or pain and suffering in the amount

of 17 trillion dollars[.]” Compl. at 1.

As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8.

The complaint does not state a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and a cogent statement of an

actual legal claim. So few facts are alleged that no defendant reasonably could be expected to

prepare a proper response to the complaint.

The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2)

and will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order consistent with

this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: May 9, 2023 /s/ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge