Opinion
Civil Action No. 102335.
December 30, 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.
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, 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). In pleading fraud or mistake, "a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b).
Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues an individual with a District of Columbia address for fraud. Because no facts are stated in support of the claim, the complaint will be dismissed. See West v. Gaithes, No. 10-cv-2096 (UNA) (D.D.C., Dec. 10, 2010) (same). A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: December 22, 2010