Ruther v. State of Michigan ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    L. RUTHER,
    Plaintiff,
    v. : Civil Action No. 17-1957 (UNA)
    STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,
    Defendants
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in
    forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint The Court Will grant the application, and dismiss the
    complaint
    The Court notes that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent
    standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haz`nes v. Kerner, 
    404 U.S. 519
    , 520 (1972). Even 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. S(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice
    to the defendants of the claims 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).
    The complaint is barely legible. lt does not appear to state the grounds upon Which this
    court’s jurisdiction depends or include a statement of a cognizable claim showing plaintiffs
    entitlement to relief. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule 8(a),
    and therefore, it must be dismissed An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is
    issued separately.
    DATE; M Q~‘ Q..d/Z %’l 0 %M
    /Ddited étates District Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2017-1957

Judges: Judge Randolph D. Moss

Filed Date: 10/4/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/4/2017