Tape v. Howard County 911 Caller 1

Opinion

FILED

4/24/2020

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Court for the District of Columbia FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Joachim Tape, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-714 (UNA)

)

)

Howard County 911 Caller et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s Civil Complaint filed pro se and his 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, mount a defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). It also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

2

Plaintiff resides in Columbia, Maryland. His cryptically worded complaint against four unnamed 911 callers in Howard County, Maryland, a Pastor, Cricket Wireless, and other entities lacks a jurisdictional basis and intelligible factual allegations. Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

_________s/_____________

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

Date: April 24, 2020 United States District Judge