From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colbert v. Fenty

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Oct 28, 2010
Civil Action No. 10 1825 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10 1825.

October 28, 2010


MEMORANDUM OPINION


This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint.

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 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).

Plaintiff states that Mayor Fenty and his staff "have repeatedly ignored [his] numerously made complaints, and it's obveous [sic] . . . why, after being here only 4 ½ months, . . . the city needed change!" Compl. at 2. He demands damages of $500,000.00 for the Mayor's "neglagents [sic], or refusel [sic] to do what's right," leaving plaintiff "permately [sic] scarred!" Id.

The complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends or a claim that plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: 10/20/10


Summaries of

Colbert v. Fenty

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Oct 28, 2010
Civil Action No. 10 1825 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2010)
Case details for

Colbert v. Fenty

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIO COLBERT, Plaintiff, v. MAYOR ADRIAN FENTY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Oct 28, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 10 1825 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2010)