Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02183 (UNA)
09-24-2020
JIMMIE MCNAIR, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT MOORE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The court will grant the application for leave to proceed IFP and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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 complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 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).
Plaintiff, who appears to be a resident of the District of Columbia, sues a single individual, Robert Moore, a resident of Bowie, Maryland. Plaintiff alleges that, upon his release from federal custody, he resided at Moore's home in Maryland. He states that, based on a misunderstanding which turned into a larger personal dispute, Moore unfairly evicted him from the property. As a result, plaintiff alleges that he has suffered a falling out with family members and is now homeless. He seeks $5 million in damages.
The ambiguous allegations comprising plaintiff's complaint fail to provide adequate notice of a claim. The causes of action, if any, are completely undefined. The pleading also fails to set forth allegations with respect to this court's subject-matter jurisdiction or venue, personal jurisdiction over the named defendant, or a valid basis for an award of damages. To the extent that plaintiff seeks to bring a landlord-tenant action, jurisdiction is likely sounded in Maryland state court, see generally Md. Code., Title 8, et seq.
Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
/s/_________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge Date: September 24, 2020