Opinion
Civil Action 22-3160 (UNA)
10-28-2022
MICHAEL L. WAGNER, Plaintiff, v. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court GRANTS plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) and for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.
A pro se litigant's pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be applied to a formal pleading drafted by lawyer. 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 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).
As drafted, plaintiff's complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Plaintiff's ultimate objective, it appears, is the rescheduling of cannabis pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act, notwithstanding plaintiff's puzzling references to the Patriot Act, Falun Gong, tobacco smoking and Woodstock. Missing from the complaint is a short and plain statement of a viable legal claim for relief this Court may order. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order is issued separately.