United States District Court, District of Columbia
For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court consolidates four complaints that the plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court on August 7, 2014 and August 14, 2014. Upon review of the plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma pauperis and each pro se civil complaint, the Court will grant the applications and dismiss the complaints.
The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaints, 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 complaints set forth few comprehensible factual allegations. The Court finds that none of the plaintiffs complaints contains a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends or a viable claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. Moreover, some of the allegations appear to duplicate allegations made in previously dismissed cases, and many of the allegations appear to have arisen beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. Because the ...