Opinion
Case: 1:17-cv-00938
05-10-2017
Christopher John Villanueva, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 5/19/2017
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civ. (F-DECK) 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.
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 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (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). "[A] complaint that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and confusing material does not meet [Rule 8's] liberal pleading requirement." T.M. v. D.C., 961 F. Supp. 2d 169, 174 (D.D.C. 2013).
Plaintiff, a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, has submitted a complaint against the United States of America that consists mostly of assorted attachments. Plaintiff begins: "No informed consent to services provided Donald Trump is not my president because of TREASON." Compl. at 1. That cryptic statement fails to provide any notice of a claim and a basis of federal court jurisdiction. Consequently, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: May 10, 2017
/s/_________
United States District Judge