Fennick v. Bush ( 2010 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
APR 19 2010
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts for the District of Columbia
Kevin Fennick, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v.
)
) Civil Action No.:
10 0600
)
George W. Bush et aI., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Kevin Fennick has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se
complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed without
prejudice.
A complaint filed by a pro se litigant is held to a lesser standard than is a formal pleading
drafted by a lawyer, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), but even a pro se complaint
must meet the minimum standards set by 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 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and
a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks to obtain. 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 and 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 two-page complaint is entitled "Complaint to Civil Rights," identifies as defendants
George W. Bush, Boeing, the u.s. House of Representatives, and Republicans, and is comprised
of the plaintiffs description and criticism of various alleged Bush administration policies
regarding subjects both foreign and domestic, including war, health care, poverty programs,
immigration, and the economy. The complaint does not contain any statement of the grounds
upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, does not contain a statement showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to relief, and makes no demand for relief. As drafted, it does not meet the
minimum standards of Rule 8. It also does not demonstrate that this court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this complaint. Accordingly the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
A separate order accompanies this memo":;.~:n;5 ~
Date: (lp.:l /2/ Jt> { Ll unilstates District Judge
-2-