United States District Court, District of Columbia
BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge.
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).
Plaintiff is a resident of Algeria suing the United States. He recounts actions that occurred in various court proceedings, particularly in California state courts, but, as with plaintiff's previous actions, the instant complaint simply fails to provide any notice of a cognizable claim and a basis for federal court jurisdiction. See Semiani v. USA-US Government, No. 14-0463 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2014) (Rule 8 dismissal); Semiani v. USA-US Government, No. 13-0217 (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2013), aff'd, No. 13-5083 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 5, 2013) (same); see also Semiani v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 13-1180 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2013) (describing dismissed complaint as containing "vague and conclusory language [alleging] ...