From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Banks v. Dist. of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Jun 29, 2020
Civil Action No. 20-1598 (UNA) (D.D.C. Jun. 29, 2020)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 20-1598 (UNA)

06-29-2020

LOUIS A. BANKS et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. 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.

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). Still, 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) 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). This standard aims to give fair notice to each defendant of the claims being asserted sufficiently to prepare a responsive answer, launch 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 addition, a "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident who is suing on behalf of himself and his minor child. See Compl. Caption. The complaint contains a long list of defendants, see Compl. at ECF pp. 2-3, 4, and conclusory statements, but no discernible allegations of fact. Moreover, the complaint does not comply with the local rules of this Court, requiring "[t]hose filing pro se in forma pauperis [to] provide in the caption the name and full residence address or official address of each party." LCvR 5.1(c)(1). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: June 29, 2020


Summaries of

Banks v. Dist. of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Jun 29, 2020
Civil Action No. 20-1598 (UNA) (D.D.C. Jun. 29, 2020)
Case details for

Banks v. Dist. of Columbia

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS A. BANKS et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Jun 29, 2020

Citations

Civil Action No. 20-1598 (UNA) (D.D.C. Jun. 29, 2020)