Brett v. Bush ( 2009 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FEB - 4 2009
NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON ClERK
) U.S. DISTRICT COURT'
FRANK BRETT,
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Civil Action No.
v. )
) 09 0213
GEORGE BUSH, et aI., )
)
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 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 pro se 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).
I ~I
There appear to be so many factual allegations against so many defendants that the Court
cannot discern what claim or claims he brings against each defendant. The complaint does not
set forth a short and plain statement of plaintiff s claims, and, as drafted, it fails to "give the
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957). For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed
without prejudice for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a). An Order consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.