Opinion
Civil Action 24-0852 (UNA)
06-20-2024
GLORIA MONTOYA SANTIAGO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. MEDSTAR HEALTHCARE WORLDWIDE, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TIMOTHY J. KELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff's 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 complaint, portions of which are illegible, alleges Plaintiff “[s]ustained assault and battery” upon her admission to MedStar Medical Center in Olney, Maryland, where she was taken by ambulance after a “WMATA Bus Accident on Dec 11-13 of last year.” Compl. at 1. According to Plaintiff, MedStar “employees and security became aggressive in precense [sic] of (1) Ambulance transport, (2) Montgomery General ED waiting area and USINS Paging System . . . [and] (3) WHC parking and Emergency Arrival area in the sight of DC police[.]” Id. Attachments to the complaint, among which are applications for housing assistance, shed no light on the claims Plaintiff intends to bring against the named Defendants.
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 instant complaint falls far short, as it neither states a basis for the Court's jurisdiction, articulates clearly a legal claim nor demands any particular form of relief. Therefore, this complaint and this civil action will be dismissed by separate Order.