UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
September 8, 2009
STANLEY A. SLUPKOWSKI, PLAINTIFF,
GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard W. Roberts United States District Judge
For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss the plaintiff's pro se civil complaint. It appears that plaintiff seeks an Order to effect the transfer of records pertaining to his military service, veterans benefits, social security benefits, and proceedings in other courts in other jurisdictions "to the District of Columbia for PERMANENT CUSTODY." Compl. at 2 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff does not articulate clearly the purpose of the transfer of records.
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 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, the Court concludes that the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), and for this reason, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
An final Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.