Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • ¢¢“~"
    FILED
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FoR THE 1)1sTR1cT oF CoLUMBIA JAN 1 0 2012
    C|ork, U.S. Dlstrict & Bankruptcy
    Courts for the District of columbia
    RAYNOLDO BANKS, )
    )
    Plaintiff, ) '
    )
    v, ) Civil Action No. . ‘ t
    ) 12 m
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, )
    )
    Defendant. )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter comes before the court on review of the plaintiffs application to proceed in
    forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the
    complaint.
    The Court has reviewed the plaintiffs 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. S(a). The purpose of the minimum
    standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendant 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. Calij"c``zno, 
    75 F.R.D. 497
    , 498 (D.D.C. l977).
    lt appears that the plaintiff has been prescribed unspecified medication and was forced to
    take the medication while incarcerated at a federal correctional institution. What few factual
    allegations the plaintiff includes in his pleading are far too vague to establish his entitlement to the
    monetary damages he demands. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), and it
    will be dismissed.
    An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
    46/
    .-`` t = ' d d
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2012-0027

Judges: Judge James E. Boasberg

Filed Date: 1/10/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014