Opinion
Civil Action 24-2481 (UNA)
09-27-2024
THOMAS KRAEMER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY GENERAL COUNSEL, TINA M. WADDELL, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff Thomas Kraemer's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the application and dismiss this 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 Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). When a pleading “contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments [,]” it does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8. Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff'd sub nom. Cooper v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). “A confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F.Supp.3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Plaintiff's claims appear to arise from the education of his minor daughter, who may or may not have had a disability, in Pennsylvania schools. The complaint is disorganized and fails to provide adequate notice of a legal claim against the defendant. The hundreds of pages of exhibits shed no further light on plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Moreover, the plaintiff fails to adequately set forth a basis for this Court's jurisdiction, and the caption of the complaint suggests plaintiff intended to file this case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
This is a final appealable Order.
The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
SO ORDERED.