West v. Rios

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: December 10, 2010
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2010-2098
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEC 10 2QlO Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptc ) Courts for the District of COlumbra Leothis West, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 10 2098 Rosie Rios, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and

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) ofthe 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky v. CIA, 355

F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. CiT. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). In pleading fraud or mistake, "a party must state with

particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

I :\\ / Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues an individual with a District of Columbia

address for fraud. Because no facts are stated in support of the claim, the complaint will be

dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge Date: December _'_,2010