Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-0177 (UNA)
02-28-2018
AROR ARK O'DIAH, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN UNION, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even a pro se litigant, 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. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
The plaintiff names 38 defendants, among whom are federal judges, heads of federal agencies, employees of state and local agencies in New York, and various corporate entities. In the 139 sequentially-numbered paragraphs of the complaint, the Court identifies not a single viable legal claim, and no defendant reasonably could be expected to prepare a proper response to this pleading in its current form. As drafted, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a) and it will be dismissed without prejudice.
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. DATE: 2/28/18
/s/_________
United States District Judge