Opinion
Civil Action No. 11 0398.
February 17, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's 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. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(1) 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); Ciralsky 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. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
Plaintiff, a Texas prisoner in Amarillo, sues a Texas state court there and four individuals identified as a Judge, "D.A.," Clerk and Foreman. Compl. Caption. He seeks to "correct indictments proir [sic] to trial, or $60 million dollars and I'll stay here." Compl. at 1. The complaint fails to establish the basis of federal court jurisdiction and plaintiffs entitlement to relief. It therefore will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to correct the state court's docket, his recourse lies, if at all, in that court.
Date: February 10th , 2011