Opinion
Civil Action 24-00288 (UNA)
03-13-2024
DONNELL KEARNEY, Plaintiff, v. MINISTRY (BOARD) DOCTORS & MEDICINE NAVY SEALS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RANDOLPH D. MOSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
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). Still, 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 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). It “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). The standard also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Plaintiff, a resident of Raleigh, North Carolina, brings this suit against “Ministry (Board) Doctors & Medicines Navy Seals (BOP)” in Atwater, California. The one-paragraph complaint, which refers to “discrimination,” “skin color,” the Plaintiff's “standing in society-City & State,” a “Dictatorship,” and “mental distress,” does not contain discernible factual allegations sufficient to “give the defendant[ ] fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]” Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see Hilska v. Jones, 217 F.R.D. 16, 21 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that a complaint containing “only vague and conclusory claims with no specific facts supporting the allegations may not give the defendant fair notice of the claims . . . and thus would not allow the defendant to devise a competent defense”) (citation omitted)). The Court will, accordingly, dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 8.
A separate order will issue.