United States District Court, District of Columbia
June 4, 2015
Serajul Haque, Plaintiff,
US AID, Defendant.
EMMET G. SULLIVAN, 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (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 Milpitas, California, who has submitted a form "Employment Discrimination Complaint" consisting of scribblings and no factual allegations. Hence, dismissal is warranted under Rule 8. In addition, among plaintiff's unexplained attachments is an order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that denies leave to file a similar unilluminating complaint based on a pre-filing injunction order that declared plaintiff "a vexatious litigant." Compl. Attach. ( Haque v. U.S. Attorney, No. 15-MC-80032-LHK, Jan. 27, 2015 Order Denying Filing of Papers). While that barring order is not binding on this Court, plaintiff is warned that "[a] complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive" and, thus, dismissed as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981). A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.