Tape v. Howard County 911 Caller 1 ( 2020 )

FILED
4/24/2020
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Court for the District of Columbia
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Joachim Tape, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-714 (UNA)
)
)
Howard County 911 Caller et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s Civil Complaint filed pro
se and his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma
pauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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, mount a defense, and
determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498
(D.D.C. 1977). It also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
1
Plaintiff resides in Columbia, Maryland. His cryptically worded complaint against four
unnamed 911 callers in Howard County, Maryland, a Pastor, Cricket Wireless, and other entities
lacks a jurisdictional basis and intelligible factual allegations. Therefore, this case will be
dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_________s/_____________
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
Date: April 24, 2020 United States District Judge
2