Opinion
Case: 1:17-cv-00899
05-11-2017
Surf Moore, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Justice Dep't et al., Defendants.
(F-Deck)
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 5/12/2017
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil 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. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application 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).
"Once again, plaintiff, a resident of Jackson, Mississippi, purports to sue the United States Department of Justice and a construction company in Chicago, Illinois." Moore v. Justice Dep't., No. 14-1386, 2014 WL 4057158, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2014). He seeks $100 million in monetary damages. See Compl. at 2 (renumbered); Moore, supra (noting that plaintiff "seeks money damages exceeding $50 million"). Although plaintiff adds to his typical "incoherent statements," Moore, 2014 WL 4057158, at * 1, that "this matter is current and request foia of records and have no response," Compl, at 2, he has not provided any particulars about a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to provide adequate notice of a claim. Hence this case will be dismissed as well under Rule 8 for insufficient pleading. See Moore, 2014 WL 4057158, at * 1 (listing cases finding same). A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
A review of this court's dockets reveals that since the decision in 2014, all of plaintiff's complaints (nine excluding the instant complaint), brought against the same defendants as here, have been dismissed for insufficient pleading under Rule 8. See Civ. Action Nos. 16-20, 16-21, 16-182, 16-981, 16-1272, 16-1701, 16-2102, 16-2392, 17-324.
/s/_________
United States District Judge Date: May 11, 2017