Opinion
Civil Action 21-01906 (UNA)
08-04-2021
SHAUN RUSHING, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CARL J. NICHOLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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). But even 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). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claims being asserted such that they can prepare a responsive answer, prepare 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 alleges that employees of a federal district court discriminated against him and denied him due process. He states that he has filed more than 70 cases in six years, presumably without success, and he has chosen to sue the United States.
As drafted, Plaintiff's pro se complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). There are far too few facts alleged to state a viable legal claim, and certainly too few facts to show an entitlement to an award of $10 trillion Therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.