Opinion
Civil Action No. 17-2151 (UNA)
11-20-2017
ROBERT HEARD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CONGRESS, et al., Defendants.
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 without prejudice.
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).
The Court has reviewed the complaint and finds that it fails to set forth factual allegations with respect to this Court's jurisdiction, plaintiff's claim showing his entitlement to relief, or a demand for some particular form of relief. The complaint purports to "challenge . . . the Dreamer Law," Compl. at 1, but instead it sets forth the plaintiff's musings on the status of non-citizens living in the United States. The complaint, as drafted, does not comply with Rule 8(a), and the Court will dismiss it without prejudice.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: 11/20/2017
/s/_________
United States District Judge