September 26, 2013
GUY WEEKS, Plaintiff,
DC POLICE, Defendant.
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.
The Court has reviewed plaintiffs 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). Evenpro 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 oi res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). As drafted, plaintiffs pleading fails to accomplish even these minimal goals.
Plaintiff alleges that "DC police arrested [him] on 4/29/13 and 4/30/13 on charges that was [sic] not against the law" in violation of unspecified "constitutional, civil and other rights." Compl. at 1. The complaint sets forth no additional factual allegations from which the Court might discern a statement of plaintiff s entitlement to relief or a demand for any particular form of relief. Nor does he include a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends.
The complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a) and, accordingly, it will be dismissed. An Order is issued separately.