Watson v. Bureau of Prisons

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA F I L E D JUL 2 9 2013 CURTIS LEE WATSON, ) clerk, u.s. oism¢¢ and

) Ba"'

v. ) civil Aca@n N@. \ g ._\ \§ ( ) BUREAU oF PRISONS, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM 0P1NION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the

complaint.

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerrzer, 404 U.S. 5l9, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tl`sch, 656 F. Supp. 23 7, 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. Califarzo, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") claims to have been given the authority to violate the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution by determining the dates on which District of Columbia prisoners are released from custody. Notwithstanding plaintiffs demand for injunctive relief, he does not allege that the BOP has engaged in conduct in violation of his constitutional rights. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule S(a), and it will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued

separately.

Miited lStates District Judge

DATE:

j /L”//)’