From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shipman v. Disabled Am. Veterans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Jun 5, 2015
Case: 1:15-cv-00871 (D.D.C. Jun. 5, 2015)

Opinion

Case: 1:15-cv-00871

06-05-2015

D'RAYFIELD SHIPMAN, Plaintiff, v. DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, Defendant.


Jury Demand
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 6/9/2015
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous.

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). 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, who states that he has "been represented by [defendant] for the past 20+ years," Compl. at 1 (page numbers designated by the Court), alleges that defendant has "grossly discriminated against" him, id. at 2, by "fail[ing] to acknowledge [his] complaints," id. He neither describes his "complaints," nor explains the alleged discrimination against him, nor states the basis for this Court's jurisdiction. As drafted, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), and it therefore will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: June 5, 2015

/s/_________

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Shipman v. Disabled Am. Veterans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Jun 5, 2015
Case: 1:15-cv-00871 (D.D.C. Jun. 5, 2015)
Case details for

Shipman v. Disabled Am. Veterans

Case Details

Full title:D'RAYFIELD SHIPMAN, Plaintiff, v. DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Jun 5, 2015

Citations

Case: 1:15-cv-00871 (D.D.C. Jun. 5, 2015)