U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAR RON LASHAWN COLLIER , ) ) Petitioner , ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:20- cv -02962 ( UNA ) ) ) STATE OF WASHINGTON , ) ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
T his matter is before the court on its initial review of petitioner’s pro se initiating pleading and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) . The c ourt will grant petitioner’s application for leave to proceed IFP an d direct him to file an amended complaint that meets the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner, who is currently in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, has filed a n ambiguous initiating pleading. See generally Petition , Dkt. 1. He sues the State of Washington, see id. at 2, 5; however, the intended cau ses of action against it are un clear , as is the relief sought. The pleading appears to be a habeas corpus petition but also cites to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See id. at 1

– 2. Th e remainder of the pleading recites concepts pertaining to habeas corpus, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. See id . at 3. The petitioner also seemingly requests that this court render an unknown judgment “void,” pursuant to the Washington State Constitution, though no other details are provided. See id. Las t, the pleading includes a self

- titled “transfer order,” but it is unknown what matter, if any, petitioner is attempting to transfer. See id

. at 2. 10/28/2020Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires an initiating pleading to contain “(1) a short and plain stateme nt of the grounds for the court’ s jurisdiction [ and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678

- 79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA , 355 F.3d 661, 668

- 71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare an adequate response and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califan o , 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). When a pleading “ contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp h arangues and personal comments[,]” it does not fulfil l the requirements of Rule 8. Jiggetts v. D.C ., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’ d sub nom

. Cooper v. D.C ., No. 17

- 7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). The instant pleading meets this standard. “When a trial court concludes that an initial complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8, an appropriate remedy is to strike the complaint . . . and to provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint that complies with the Rules.” Jiggetts , 319 F.R.D. at 413

– 14 . Thus, the plain tiff will be directed to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 within 30 days of the entry of this order. The court notes that petitioner has recently filed another matter in this District, against different defendants , seeking habeas rel ief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Collier v. Burnes, et al ., 20

- cv - 02701 (CJN) (D.D.C. filed Sept. 17, 2020). To the extent that petitioner seeks relief relating to that petition, he must specifically file in that matter

. A separate order accompanie s this memorandum o pinion.
Date: October 28, 2020DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH U nited States District Judge