Woubetu v. People Who Work At St. Mary's Church

Full title: SAMSON WOUBETU, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLE WHO WORK AT ST. MARY'S CHURCH, et…

Court: United States District Court, District of Columbia

Date published: Jul 29, 2022

Civil Action 22-cv-2164 (UNA) (D.D.C. Jul. 29, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 22-cv-2164 (UNA)

07-29-2022

SAMSON WOUBETU, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLE WHO WORK AT ST. MARY'S CHURCH, et al., Defendants.

CARL J. WHOLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CARL J. WHOLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and pro se Complaint. See ECF No. 1 & 2. The Court grants the application and, for the reasons discussed below, dismisses the Complaint.

A pro se litigant's pleading is held to less stringent standards than the standard 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 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). Rule 8 gives fair notice to the defendant 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).

The Complaint alleges in vague terms that certain defendants “held” plaintiff's wife, called plaintiff “Satan,” and “oppose[] God & the Saints.” Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1 (page number designated by CM/ECF). Further, it is alleged that Barack Obama “refused” to stop defendants “from harassing and attacking” plaintiff. Id. Missing, however, is a statement establishing a basis for this Court's jurisdiction and a demand for relief. Furthermore, there are so few factual allegations that defendants cannot reasonably be expected to identify the claim or claims brought against them. As drafted, the Complaint fails to comply with the minimum pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a) and, therefore, must be dismissed. A separate order will issue.