United States District Court, District of Columbia
June 8, 2015
WILLIAM H. COLLINGTON, Plaintiff,
ALFRED A. OWENS, et al., Defendants.
EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
The Court is mindful 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). 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).
The complaint appears to either "recit[e] bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulate events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind." Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Furthermore, the complaint neither gives defendants fair notice of the claims against them nor sets forth a clear demand for relief. As drafted, the pleading does not comply with Rule 8(a) and it therefore will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.