Wagner v. United States Solicitor General

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided January 19, 2023·No. Civil Action No. 2022-2571·Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL L. WAGNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 22-2571 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis (ECF No. 3) and for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No.

1) and this civil action without prejudice.

A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be applied to a

formal pleading drafted by lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro

se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8 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).

1 As drafted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in

Rule 8(a). According to plaintiff, antibacterial soaps and chemicals in disposable diapers are

toxic, and he demands that this Court “Order a Total-Ban of Antibacterial Soap and Disposable

Diapers containing dangerous chemicals.” Compl. at 1. Missing from the complaint is a short

and plain statement of a viable legal claim for relief this Court may order. Therefore, the Court

will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: January 19, 2023 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wagner v. United States Solicitor General, (D.D.C. 2023).

Wagner v. United States Solicitor General (Wagner v. United States Solicitor General) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)
Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)