Opinion
Civil Action 23-0492 (UNA)
03-06-2023
NICKHOLAS KNIGHT, SR., Plaintiff, v. JOE BIDEN ADMIN., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court GRANTS the application (ECF No. 2) and for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No. 1) and this civil action without prejudice.
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).
In broad sweeping statements, plaintiff alleges the current President and his administration are “committing human rights violation[s]” and “war crimes.” Compl. at 1. Further, plaintiff alleges, defendants are “committing fraud[,] politicizing the DOD and DOJ FBI CIA and the judicial system[,] covering up heinous crimes . . . and suppressing freedom of speech.” Id. The complaint contains no factual allegations identifying any particular human rights violation or fraudulent act, however. It does not explain what plaintiff means by “politicizing” certain federal government agencies, or identify particular crimes defendants are “covering up,” or describe how defendants are suppressing freedom of speech. So few facts are alleged that no defendant reasonably could be expected to prepare a proper response to the complaint. As drafted, plaintiff's complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Even if the complaint managed to include a short and plain statement of a viable legal claim, plaintiff does not demand relief.
An Order is issued separately.