Opinion
Civil Action 23-2364 (UNA)
03-17-2024
TERRANCE TURNER, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN PESNELL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CARL J. NICHOLS, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court grants the application and, for the following reasons, dismisses the complaint.
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those applied to pleadings drafted by lawyers. 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) (quotations omitted). In addition, Rule 8(d) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). “Taken together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up).
The complaint in this case does not meet those requirements.. It is quite difficult to decipher and fails to give defendants notice of the claims. And even construed as generously as possible, it does not allege facts supporting a plausible legal claim. As drafted, the complaint thus fails to meet basic pleading standards. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.