Opinion
Civil Action 22-1718 (UNA)
06-21-2022
MICHAEL D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, and pro se Complaint, Dkt. 1. The Court grants the application and, for the reasons discussed below, the dismisses the complaint.
A pro se litigant's pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be applied to a formal pleading drafted by lawyer. 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 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 alleges violations of rights protected under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See Compl. at 3. However, the few factual allegations of the complaint do not describe who violated those rights, where, how or when those rights were violated, or the basis for awarding damages upwards of $300 billion. As drafted, the complaint fails to give defendants fair notice of the claims against them and, accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. A separate order will issue.