Opinion
Civil Action 22-01244 (UNA)
02-28-2023
OSIRIS E. LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. ETA et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge
This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff's purported 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's address of record is a P.O. Box address in Coral Gables, Florida. Plaintiff has not complied with the order to correct this rule violation, which is reason enough to dismiss the case. See Order, ECF No. 3. Regardless, the initiating pleading is captioned, to the extent intelligible, “Emergency Ex Parte Petition for Judge Timothy Kelly” and names as defendants ETA and Socialist International. In the single-page document, Plaintiff states that he is “requesting an initial amount of $15 million” from the defendants but has not described the defendants, provided addresses for them, and alleged facts of wrongdoing. Plaintiff's cryptic statements simply fail to provide notice of a claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction. Consequently, this action will be dismissed by separate order.