Jackson v. Olexa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIAM G. JACKSON, III, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 23-02620 (UNA)
v. )
)
)
MICHAEL OLEXA et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and
Request for Injunction, ECF No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The
Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
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). Still,
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 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). It “does not require
detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-
harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted
so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether
the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
The standard also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
Plaintiff’s six-page handwritten complaint is indecipherable and does not provide
Defendants a fair opportunity to respond. Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate
order.
____________________
JIA M. COBB
Date: October 19, 2023 United States District Judge
2