Wayne, Jr. v. Metropolitan Police, District of Columbia

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESUS A. WAYNE, Jr., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 25-0077 (UNA)

)

METROPOLITAN POLICE, DISTRICT ) OF COLUMBIA, SIX DISTRICT, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.

The Court has reviewed 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).

2

Plaintiff alleges “Trespassing by Metropolitan Police (D.C.) Six District on Sunday[,]

January 12, 2025,” at plaintiff’s residence “for their Assoical [sic] Kwan McKnight.” Compl. at 4. The complaint does not state a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction; the circumstances of the alleged trespass are not described; and plaintiff demands “No relief . . . No Lawsuit.” Id. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading standard set forth in Rule 8, and it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: February 18, 2025 /s/ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

United States District Judge