Court Opinion

ID: 9407471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 15:01:18.400467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.539041
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GARY V. JENKINS,                                     )
                                                     )
                               Plaintiff,            )
                                                     )
               v.                                    )       Civil Action No. 23-1906 (UNA)
                                                     )
UNITED STATES, et al.,                               )
                                                     )
                               Defendants.           )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis (ECF No. 2) and for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No.

1) and this civil action without prejudice.

       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
       This complaint merely demands a writ of mandamus without setting forth a basis for this

Court’s jurisdiction or alleging facts showing plaintiff is entitled to relief from any defendant.

And it is unclear whether or how the instant complaint differs from that filed in a previous

action, the appeal of which is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit. See Jenkins v. United States, No. 23-5018 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2023). As

drafted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a).

An Order is issued separately.
                                                                         2023.07.06
                                                                         16:59:26
                                                                         -04'00'
DATE: July 6, 2023                                    TREVOR N. McFADDEN
                                                      United States District Judge

                                                  2