Opinion
Civil Action 24-0627 (UNA)
03-11-2024
KWAME LAKIM SHABAZZ, Plaintiff, v. D.C. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES VETERANS PROGRAM, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RANDOLPH D. MOSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on review of pro se plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), civil complaint (ECF No. 1), and motion for change of venue (ECF No. 3). The Court GRANTS the application, DENIES the motion for change of venue as moot, and for the reasons stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 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 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 complaint is nonsensical, consisting of a series of disjointed phrases which, taken together, do not establish a basis for this Court's jurisdiction, state a viable legal claim, or demand any particular relief. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.