Opinion
Civil Action No. 10 1436.
August 16, 2010
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 District of Columbia resident, sues a pre-paid legal service in Ada, Oklahoma, for $7 million in damages. He lists defendant's address as a post office box. Plaintiff accuses defendant of having "misrepresented" him "several times" and of having "bogously [sic] terminated our contract." Compl. at 2. The vague accusations fail to provide adequate notice of a claim. In addition, plaintiff has not provided a suitable address for serving the defendant with process, which is the responsibility of the court officers in in forma pauperis proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.