Court Opinion

ID: 9386728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 16:01:02.77516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.467584
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SAMSON WOUBETU,                               )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )
       v.                                     )         Civil Action No. 23-0947 (UNA)
                                              )
METRO PCS/T-MOBILE,                           )
                                              )
               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
       According to plaintiff, defendant is responsible for deletion of email messages and

accepts his monthly payments while refusing to assist him “with technical problem and also 611

telephone customer services.” Compl. at 1. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with the

minimum pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a) and, therefore, must be dismissed. The

complaint alleges very few facts, and notably, is silent as to a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction

and any form of relief. A separate order will issue.

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

                                                  2