Dixon v. Fifteen Central Park West

Full title: ERNEST DIXON, Plaintiff, v. FIFTEEN CENTRAL PARK WEST, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Sep 17, 2008

Civil Action No. 08 1673 (D.D.C. Sep. 17, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08 1673.

September 17, 2008

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JANET HALL, District Judge

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.

Plaintiff "is suing the address Fifteen Central Park West . . . for all [his] earnings." He demands that the "keys [be] left on the desk and everyone employed at the said [address] vacate [the] premises immediately." Compl. at 1.¹

1 For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court consolidates five complaints, each of which purports to sue an address.

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).

Here, the complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.