Lane v. United States ( 2014 )

(M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILED
JULlBZDl‘i
Stork. U.s. mama: a. Bankruptcy
Courts for ma District of Columbla
ANTHONY P. LANE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
V. ) Civil Action No.
, [Li—[£19.4-
UNITED STATES, )
) C
Defendant. ) V
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis with his pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss
the complaint.
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. T isch, 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
forjudgment 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
\nl
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).
Stated briefly, the complaint is unintelligible. The Court cannot identify the particular
wrongs the United States allegedly has committed. As drafted, the complaint utterly fails to set
forth a short and plain statement of plaintiffs claims, and it therefore will be dismissed. See,
e.g.. Cqfield v. Williams, No. 96-5072, 1997 WL 68271, at *1 (DD. Cir. Jan. 15, 1997)
(affirming dismissal of “complaint and various pleadings [which] fail to provide sufficient
information for appellees or the court to discern what appellees allegedly did wrong”); Poblere v.
Goldberg, 680 F. Supp. 2d 18, 20-21 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing complaint that “lacks essential
elements such as a description of the alleged transactions, identifications of parties involved. and
the dates and places of key events” for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a)).
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
United Sta ‘
I istrict Judge
DATE:
“11an