Winkler v. Supreme Court of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JUN ' ' 20\2
U S District &Bankruptcy
LATISHA RAY WINKLER, et al., ) `````` t~r the District of Columbia
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12 0951
)
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs' applications to proceed in forma
pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the applications, and dismiss the
complaint.
The Court has reviewed 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 prose 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).
1
The complaint is so incoherently written that the Court cannot discern a viable claim within
this Court's subject matter jurisdiction or a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the
named defendant or a clear statement showing plaintiffs' entitlement to the relief they seek.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with
this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
United States District Judge
DATE: 6/ sf('~,
2