Court Opinion

ID: 9386729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 16:01:03.808237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.472588
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SAMSON WOUBETU,                               )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )
       v.                                     )         Civil Action No. 23-0946 (UNA)
                                              )
CATHOLIC CHARITIES,                           )
                                              )
               Defendant.                     )

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court grants the application and, for the reasons

discussed below, the dismisses the complaint.

       A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be applied to a

formal pleading drafted by lawyer. 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 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
       Defendant operates a shelter in Washington, DC where plaintiff has been staying in

recent months. See Compl. at 1. According to plaintiff, defendant’s staff “refuse to stop

assaulting” him, take his books and other property, refuse to provide him a single room or

apartment, and “insult and disrespect” him. Id. Missing from the complaint is a statement

establishing a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, there are so few factual

allegations that defendant cannot reasonably be expected to identify the claim or claims brought

against it so that it may prepare a proper response.

       As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with the minimum pleading standard set forth in

Rule 8(a) and, therefore, must be dismissed. A separate order will issue.

                                                       /s/
                                                       TANYA S. CHUTKAN
DATE: April 12, 2023                                   United States District Judge

                                                 2