West v. Cabral

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 16, 2009
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2009-1314
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

JUL 16 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT clerk U s D_ t l EDI TRICT oF CGLUMBIA ' - ~ 'S r€fand FOR TH s B¢"kl°l-'Ptcy Courts

LEOTHIS WEST, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v, ) CivilAction No.

ANNA ESCABEDES CABRAL, ) )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs 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 a complaint filed by a pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than is applied to a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Haz`nes 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(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. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Under its caption, the complaint in its entirety states, "Fruad [sic] and False Statement

Against the United States." Compl. at l. Without factual allegations of any kind, the Court cannot determine its jurisdiction, the basis of the plaintiff s claims, or the relief demanded. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and, therefore, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

@z@i_

United States District Judge

Date:

:).\qjo‘v