Court Opinion

ID: 9366280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 16:01:21.077376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.492389
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HELENE TONIQUE LAURENT MILLER,                        )
                                                      )
               Plaintiff,                             )
                                                      )
       v.                                             )   Civil Action No. 23-0103 (UNA)
                                                      )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,                   )
                                                      )
               Defendants.                            )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis and her civil complaint.

       The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s 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).

                                                  1
        Plaintiff alleges that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of

Illinois violated her civil rights, including her “right to use [her] local state courts for civil action

of litigation . . . and [her] right to use the Federal District Court of Illinois Northern District

Eastern Division’s District Court.” Compl. at 1. She wants to “press charges” against the office

for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, “Federal

tampering,” and “tort.” Id. Missing from the complaint are allegations establishing the grounds

for this Court’s jurisdiction, a statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to

relief, and a demand for any particular relief. Furthermore, plaintiff may not initiate criminal

proceedings by filing a complaint with this Court, which has no authority to compel the

government to initiate a criminal investigation or to prosecute a criminal case. See Shoshone–

Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see also Cox v. Sec'y of Labor,

739 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D.D.C. 1990) (citing cases).

        The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will

dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: January 25, 2023                                           /s/
                                                                 CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                                 United States District Judge

                                                    2