Opinion
Civil Action No. 10 0787.
May 11, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
P ro 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 complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and 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, a resident of Arlington, Virginia, sues a defendant with a District of Columbia address but for what is unknown. The complaint and its attachments show only that plaintiff was arrested in the District on January 9, 2009, and that the charges were dismissed on March 3, 2009. Plaintiff does not accuse named defendant "PMHS" of any wrongdoing, nor does she state any basis for federal court jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.