Court Opinion

ID: 9915971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 15:02:55.799374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:23:18.036842
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KAREN HYLTON,                                         )
                                                      )
                               Plaintiff,             )
                                                      )
               v.                                     )       Civil Action No. 23-3732 (UNA)
                                                      )
THE UNITED STATES, et al.,                            )
                                                      )
                               Defendants.            )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1) and amended complaint (ECF

No. 3). The application is granted, and for the reasons discussed below, the complaint is

dismissed.

       Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those

applied to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, 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). It “does not

require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-

unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations

omitted). In addition, Rule 8(d) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and

direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “Taken together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis

                                                 1
placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669

(D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of

the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate

defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). The standard also assists the court in determining whether it has

jurisdiction over the subject matter.

       The complaint, both originally and as amended, sets forth plaintiff’s observations about

and reaction to criminal proceedings against those responsible for her son’s death as well as her

own arrest and prosecution. Missing, however, are factual allegations in support of a discernable

legal claim, or at least a claim distinct from any which might have been presented in other civil

actions plaintiff has brought in this Court. As drafted, this complaint fails to meet the minimal

pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a) and it will be dismissed, as will this civil action. A

separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

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

                                                  2