Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-01563
07-29-2016
DR. ROBERT G. MODRALL, Plaintiff, v. KIMBERLY DEUTSCH, et al., Defendants.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 8/2/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck) MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint, keeping in mind that 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). 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(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). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claims 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).
The complaint neither identifies a basis for this Court's jurisdiction nor clearly states a claim showing his entitlement to relief. Plaintiff mentions a request for records maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration, but it is not clear that he intends to bring a claim under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), see 5 U.S.C. § 552. If plaintiff does intend to bring a FOIA claim, it cannot proceed as against the two individuals he has named defendants in this action. Rather, it must be brought against a federal government agency. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Cooper v. Stewart, No. 11-5061, 2011 WL 6758484, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 15, 2011) (per curiam).
As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), and it will be dismissed without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: 7/29/16
/s/_________
United States District Judge