Rushing v. State of Michigan ( 2021 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT. 12, 2021
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
SHAUN RUSHING, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-01905 (UNA)
)
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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. 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 alleges that a Michigan state agency has denied his requests for medical coverage,
and he brings this lawsuit demanding insurance and an award of $110 trillion. As drafted,
plaintiff’s pro se complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule
1
8(a). It fails to state a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and articulate a claim showing plaintiff’s
entitlement to an award of $110 trillion. The Court, therefore, will dismiss the complaint without
prejudice and will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis. An Order consistent with
this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: October 12, 2021 ______________________
CARL J. NICHOLS
United States District Judge
2