Woubetu v. Claridge Tower

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 12, 2023
DocketCivil Action No. 2023-0943
StatusPublished

This text of Woubetu v. Claridge Tower (Woubetu v. Claridge Tower) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Woubetu v. Claridge Tower, (D.D.C. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SAMSON WOUBETU, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-0943 (UNA) ) CLARIDGE TOWER, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court grants the application and, for the reasons

discussed below, the dismisses the complaint.

A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be applied to a

formal pleading drafted by lawyer. See Haines 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 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).

1 Plaintiff alleges, in wholly conclusory fashion, that the District of Columbia Housing

Authority discriminates against him “by put[t]ing [him] in the waiting list longer than two or

four years.” Compl. at 1. Plaintiff once lived at Claridge Tower, and now “want[s] to get [his

own] place” to avoid having “[t]he shelters tak[e]” his belongings. Id. There are practically no

facts alleged, such that the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirement of Rule

8(a). Missing are a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of claim, and a

demand for relief from the named defendants.

A separate order will issue.

/s/ TANYA S. CHUTKAN DATE: June 12, 2023 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)
Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Woubetu v. Claridge Tower, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woubetu-v-claridge-tower-dcd-2023.