Whitley v. Fannie Mae

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 26, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-0453
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

MAR 2 6 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FoR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA c%'gr'§é g §;=»g;r':i)rt;¥a ) Charleston E. Whitley, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. r

, 12 visa Fannie Mae, ) ) Dcfendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs 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) of the 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. l987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(l) 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); Cz'ralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 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. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing Fannie Mae to "remove Dept. Justice

Mortgage Lien to my home Dumbarton Oaks Mansion . . . ." Compl. at 1. The complaint

Opinion.

United §tates District r.ludge

Date: March § , 2012