Opinion
Civil Action No. 17-1020 (UNA)
06-15-2017
JOHN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint.
In what appears to be a case of mistaken identity, the crimes of plaintiff's twin brother (including rape and sodomy) are attributed to plaintiff . Compl. at 6 (page numbers designated by ECF). As a result, plaintiff believes that he is "targeted by those who are into sodomy and those who sympathize with them." Id. He alleges that he has been harassed, and his movements have been tracked. See id. at 8.
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 claims 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).
The Court has reviewed the complaint and finds that it fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule 8(a). It does not set forth a statement of a cognizable claim or demand any particular form of relief. The Court therefore will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: 6/15/2017
/s/_________
United States District Judge