Court Opinion

ID: 9904739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 18:02:37.142982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:18.208142
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                    )
CHRISTOPHER DEWITT,                 )
                                    )
            Plaintiff,              )
                                    )
      v.                            )                    Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02738 (UNA)
                                    )
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,       )
                                    )
            Defendants.             )
___________________________________ )

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2.          The Court will grant Plaintiff’s IFP

application and, for the reasons explained herein, it will dismiss this matter without prejudice.

       Plaintiff sues the District of Columbia, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department’s 7th

Precinct, and D.C. Police Commander John Branch. He purports to bring this case pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, and broadly seeks damages for “inhumane treatment and aggravated circumstances

while in custody of [the] 7th precinct.” The remainder of the complaint is left largely blank, with

no facts, context, or details necessary to state, or even so much as infer, a legal claim.

       Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.

Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to

contain “(1) a short and plain statement 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). The Rule 8 standard ensures that

defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive

answer and an adequate defense. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Here, as
presented, neither the Court nor Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify Plaintiff’s

claims, and the allegations fall well short of stating a plausible claim.

       For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies

this memorandum opinion.

Date: November 27, 2023
                                                               /s/_________________________
                                                                 ANA C. REYES
                                                                 United States District Judge