Court Opinion

ID: 9916178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 16:01:49.899597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:24:55.567053
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EMMANUEL ADEWALE ADEYINKA,                             )
                                                       )
               Plaintiff,                              )
                                                       )
       v.                                              )   Civil Action No. 23-3316 (UNA)
                                                       )
PROJECT HOME, et al.,                                  )
                                                       )
               Defendants.                             )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

forma pauperis and civil complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons

stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.

       The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants 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
       At the beginning, the complaint appears related to housing: plaintiff cites the Fair

Housing Act, alleges discrimination based on disability, race, color, and national origin, see

Compl. at 3, and refers to defendants’ efforts to find plaintiff subsidized housing, see id. at 5.

However, in the section titled “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff launches into a discussion of

prescribed medications (including Seroquel and quetiapine), their side-effects, and assorted court

cases in Pennsylvania, Texas and Oregon. See generally id. at 6. Lastly, in the sections titled

“Irreparable Injury” and “Relief,” see id. at 7, plaintiff fails to articulate any harm he has

suffered or any basis for “a 500 million settlement,” id.

       As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8.

So few cogent facts are alleged that the named defendants would not have adequate notice of the

legal claims against them.

       An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: January 8, 2024                                  CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                       United States District Judge

                                                   2