Opinion
Civil Action No. 20-3284 (UNA)
12-17-2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court is mindful 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 claim 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).
Plaintiff's claim appears to arise from an alleged assault by a special police officer in the District of Columbia. No details of the incident are alleged, however, and it is not clear where, when, or by whom plaintiff was assaulted. Plaintiff's allegations of murder are even less clear. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Furthermore, the complaint is deficient for its failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 5.1(c), which calls for the full name and address of the intended defendant, and with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) which requires plaintiff's signature.
The Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: December 17, 2020
/s/
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge