Opinion
Civil Action No. 17-2623 (UNA)
01-02-2018
RANDALL R. BERGERUD, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH A. BLANCO, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
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 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(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 claims being asserted such that they can prepare a responsive answer, prepare 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).
Based on plaintiff's allegations that he requested information and has not received from the United States Department of Justice, see, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 3-6, plaintiff may intend to bring this action under the Freedom of Information Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552. However, because the complaint also mentions conspiracies in which the defendants are participating and fraud the defendants allegedly are committing, the Court is unable to determine what claim(s) plaintiff intends to pursue. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a).
The Court will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: January 2, 2018
/s/_________
United States District Judge