United States District Court, District of Columbia
June 22, 2015
SERAJUL HAQUE, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff's 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). 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 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).
Plaintiff submits a form "Employment Discrimination Complaint" purportedly alleging discrimination based on his race, religion, sex, national origin, and "Retaliation/Age/Professional etc." Compl. at 2. Because the complaint contains no factual allegations whatsoever to support an employment discrimination claim, as drafted, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a). A separate order of dismissal is issued separately.